Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LAPPEENRANTA-LAHTI UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY LUT
School of Business and Management
Business Administration
Maria Ruuskanen
THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP
MANAGEMENT IN VALUE CREATION
Examiners: Professor Katrina Lintukangas Professor Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen
ABSTRACT
Author: Maria Ruuskanen
Title: The role of effective supplier relationship management in value
creation
Faculty: School of Business and Management
Master’s Program: Supply Management
Year: 2021
Master’s thesis: Lappeenranta-Lahti University of Technology LUT
81 pages, 7 figures, 3 tables, 1 appendix
Examiners: Professor Katrina Lintukangas
Professor Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen
Keywords: Supplier relationship management, supplier collaboration, value
creation
The purpose of this research is to study value creation through effective SRM, its definition,
benefits, challenges, barriers, and practices. The aim is to gain a better understanding of
value creation in buyer-supplier relationships and identify the ways it occurs in different
levels of the organization.
In the empirical part of this study, ten professionals were interviewed from nine different
industries. The key findings of this study show that value creation occurs at all levels of the
organization and therefore SRM should be emphasized throughout the organization
accordingly. Value creation occurs in different interaction points between the buyer and the
supplier and people in the project teams have a significant effect on the relationship due to
their human nature.
Key supplier relationships are based on trust, transparency, information sharing, and
continuity. In creating value through SRM, effective governance, a clear SRM framework,
responsibilities, and ownership of the supplier relationships have to be in place. The focus
should be on effective communication, information sharing, supplier development, and
innovation to create maximum value.
TIIVISTELMÄ
Tekijä: Maria Ruuskanen
Tutkielman nimi: Toimittajasuhteiden hallinnan rooli arvon luonnissa
Tiedekunta: Kauppatieteellinen tiedekunta
Pääaine: Supply Management (MSM)
Vuosi: 2021
Pro Gradu-tutkielma: LUT-yliopisto
81 sivua, 7 kaaviota, 3 taulukkoa, 1 liite
Tarkastajat: Professori Katrina Lintukangas
Professori Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen
Avainsanat: Toimittajasuhteiden hallinta, toimittajayhteistyö, arvon luonti
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tutkia toimittajasuhteiden hallinnan roolia arvon
luonnissa. Tutkimuksessa määritellään toimittajasuhteiden hallinnan edut, haasteet, esteet ja
käytännöt sekä tehokkaat toimintatavat arvon luonnin mahdollistamiseksi ja edistämiseksi.
Tutkielman tavoitteena on saada parempi käsitys arvonluonnista avaintoimittajasuhteissa ja
tunnistaa tapoja, joilla se tapahtuu organisaation eri tasoilla.
Tämän tutkimuksen empiirisessä osassa haastateltiin kymmentä toimittajasuhteiden
hallinnan ammattilaista yhdeksältä eri toimialalta. Tämän tutkimuksen keskeiset havainnot
osoittavat, että arvonluonti tapahtuu organisaation kaikilla tasoilla, ja siksi
toimittajasuhteiden hallintaa on korostettava koko organisaatiossa. Arvon luominen
tapahtuu eri vuorovaikutuskohteissa ostajan ja toimittajan välillä, ja projektiryhmien
ihmisillä on merkittävä vaikutus suhteen laatuun niiden inhimillisen luonteen vuoksi.
Avaintoimittajasuhteet perustuvat luottamukseen, läpinäkyvyyteen, tiedon jakamiseen ja
jatkuvuuteen. Jotta arvonluonti toimittajasuhteiden hallinnan avulla olisi mahdollista, on
oltava käytössä tehokas hallinto, selkeä SRM-viitekehys, selkeät vastuut ja selkeä
toimittajasuhteiden omistajuus. Yritysten tulisi keskittyä tehokkaaseen kommunikaatioon,
tiedon jakamiseen, toimittajien kehittämiseen ja innovointiin maksimaalisen arvon luonnin
mahdollistamiseksi.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS After countless hours of writing, I am so excited to be writing the last chapter of this master’s
thesis. Even though it feels amazing to finish this project it also means the end of a special
chapter in my life. My mum and my sister also studied business at LUT and due to hearing
such great things it was my number one choice of university, and somehow it still exceeded
all my expectations. After five years of studying, I leave LUT with a few life-long-friends,
a partner and so many wonderful memories. There were also very challenging times but
thanks to amazing support from my family and friends, and flexibility from professors, I will
graduate as planned!
There are so many people I would like to thank for supporting me in this project. Firstly,
thank you to my supervisors Katrina Lintukangas and Anni-Kaisa Kähkönen for providing
guidance and valuable feedback. Katrina, you were the best supervisor I could have got to
this thesis especially in the beginning; I only had an idea and you guided me in the right
direction and gave great advice on how to make it better. I am also very grateful for all MSM
professors; thank you for sharing your expertise, I learned so much! There also were a few
times when I needed flexibility in schedules due to working whilst studying and challenges
in life and due to your flexibility, I was able to get that, and I will always be grateful for it.
I also want to thank my family especially Miia, my sister, for sharing your insights on the
process of writing a thesis, sharing your ideas, and supporting me when I needed it the most.
Thank you, Toni, for always believing in me and also for your patience especially during the
past two months since I had no free time whilst working full-time and finishing this thesis.
Thank you, Julia and Henna, for your support from the beginning to the end, working on this
thesis alongside you both made it so much better! I will look back at this time and smile
since we survived this final year of studies together regardless of the pandemic and the world
turning upside-down.
In Espoo, March 7th, 2021 Maria Ruuskanen
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research questions and objectives ............................................................................... 2
1.2 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Definitions of the key concepts of the study ................................................................ 4 1.5 Structure of the study ................................................................................................... 5
2. VALUE AND VALUE CREATION .............................................................................. 7 2.1 Value creation in SRM ................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Barriers and risks ....................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Mitigating risk and sharing value .............................................................................. 13
3. SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (SRM) .......................................... 13 3.1 Supplier collaboration ................................................................................................ 15
3.2 Supplier development ................................................................................................ 18 3.3 Motives for SRM ....................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Benefits of SRM ........................................................................................................ 21 3.5 Challenges of SRM .................................................................................................... 25
3.6 SRM process .............................................................................................................. 28
4. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 34
5. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 39 5.1 Collaboration with key suppliers ............................................................................... 40
5.2 Key supplier development ......................................................................................... 42 5.3 SRM objectives .......................................................................................................... 44
5.4 SRM benefits ............................................................................................................. 45 5.5 SRM challenges ......................................................................................................... 46
5.6 SRM process and activities ........................................................................................ 49 5.7 Value creation through SRM ..................................................................................... 52
5.8 SRM barriers and risks .............................................................................................. 55 5.9 SRM best practices .................................................................................................... 56
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 59 6.1 Comparison of theoretical and empirical findings ..................................................... 59
6.2 Answering the research questions .............................................................................. 62
6.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 65 6.4 Managerial implications ............................................................................................ 66
6.5 Future research avenues ............................................................................................. 67
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 68 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Thesis Framework
Figure 2: Structure of the Thesis
Figure 3: Potential Forms of Value from Customer-Supplier Collaboration (modified from
Hughes, 2008)
Figure 4: Three dimensions of B2B relationships (modified from Hughes, 2008)
Figure 5: Impact of SRM on value creation (modified from PwC, 2013)
Figure 6: SRM as a formalized business process (modified from PwC, 2013)
Figure 7: SRM core processes to deliver value (modified from Deloitte, 2015a)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Benefits of SRM
Table 2: Challenges of SRM
Table 3: Interviewees
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Globalization and increased market competition have pushed companies to seek ways to
create more value to their customers in order to remain competitive in the market (Hafeez,
Zhang & Malak, 2002; Park, Shin & Chang, 2010; Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Trent,
2005). Many companies have outsourced some or all production to focus on core activities
only and now more than ever companies are relying on their key suppliers to support them
in delivering maximum value to their customers (Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Dalvi &
Kant, 2015; Liker & Choi, 2004; Möller & Törrönen, 2003). Supplier relationship
management has become critical due to competition shifting more from individual
companies towards supply chain level; in order to succeed in the market, the supply chain
needs to be responsive and serve the company’s needs the best way possible (Sahay, 2003;
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Huemer, 2006). Therefore, achieving a great understanding on
most effective supply management practices has become crucial in the company’s success
(Prajogo, Chowdhury, Yeung & Cheng, 2010; Möller & Törrönen, 2003). According to
Hughes (2008), “companies need to reorient themselves to systematically identify and
capitalize ways to create value with their suppliers”.
In academic discussion of SRM the focus is shifting from competitive masculine approaches
to more towards collaborative approaches where suppliers are considered as industry experts
that are capable of providing added value to the company through their market knowledge
and participation in product development and innovation (Kähkönen & Lintukangas, 2012).
Companies are constantly seeking for ways to create competitive advantage in forms of new
business models and more efficient supply in which SRM and value creation has a significant
role (Cousins & Spekman, 2003; Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Dalvi & Kant, 2015). Due to
purchasing being the largest single cost item in most companies, the ability to effectively
manage the supply base and reduce costs can affect the development of valuable, non-
transferable and non-imitable resources that can provide significant competitive advantage
(Zsidisin, Ellram & Ogden, 2003). Ellram and Carr (1994) argue that strategically managed
supply management and purchasing provide a potential value-added resource to the
company.
2
This study focuses on value creation through supplier relationship management (SRM).
Theoretical contribution of this research is to gain more understanding of the linkage
between SRM and value creation that occurs in collaborative relationships.
1.1 Research questions and objectives
This study focuses on supplier relationship management (SRM) and value creation.
Theoretical contribution of this research is to gain more understanding of the linkage
between SRM and value creation that occurs and can be created in collaborative
relationships.
The main research question addressed in this thesis is:
How to create value through effective supplier relationship management?
To support the main research objective, supporting objectives are defined. The secondary
objectives aim to define the benefits of SRM, the challenges of SRM and the most effective
SRM practices in value creation. In order to answer the main research question, the main
research question is divided into three sub-questions and they are:
What are the benefits of SRM?
What are the challenges of SRM?
What SRM practices are effective in value creation?
In this thesis, SRM benefits are important to recognize to understand what can be achieved
through effective SRM. Challenges and barriers are important to recognise in order to
identify what can be preventing from succeeding in value creation. When aiming for
effective SRM, best practices need to be identified for SRM process as a whole.
1.2 Conceptual framework
This section presents the conceptual framework of this research, which is limited to
supplier relationship management (SRM) theories and value creation.
3
Figure 1. Thesis Framework
Thesis framework (Figure 1) includes the main theory of SRM in value creation perspective.
The figure reflects how SRM benefits, challenges and practices have an effect on value
creation. The research problem of this thesis is to find out how to create value through
effective SRM. The aim is also present supplier development as a part of SRM, as it is crucial
in developing and maintaining the value created through SRM in supplier relationships.
1.3 Limitations The aim of this study is to approach the topic through existing theories, academic literature
and studies and then reflect these to the empirical data and practical implications. There are
limitations to this research that need to be acknowledged. The empirical data is collected
from several companies from different industries and market environment. This can have
impact on how SRM is considered and implemented in companies. The considerations can
also vary greatly across companies depending on their position, negotiation power, size and
economic cluster, historical supply base and ownership structure and therefore it can be
challenging to reflect the results of this study to all companies practicing SRM.
SRM Practices
SRM Challenges Value
creation
SRM Benefits
4
It should also be noted that the empirical data will be collected from the company
representatives only, so the results reflect the context from the company’s side of view. Also,
the results of this study will be valid for only the time being as the key topic of this study,
supplier relationship management, is changing in its nature. Due to this reason the study
might not be relevant in a few years’ time as the topic evolves and new findings are made.
(Kandampully, 2002)
1.4 Definitions of the key concepts of the study
This section defines the key concepts that will be used in the thesis. The main concepts are
Value and Value creation, Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) and Supply Chain
Collaboration.
Supplier Relationship Management (SMR) is a multidiscipline and proactive approach to
managing supplier relationships and external resources while accumulating a broad vision
in supply decision making. SRM connects the company’s internal supply organization to the
global market. (Lintukangas, 2010) Hughes (2008) defines SRM as “the systematic,
enterprise wide assessment of suppliers’ assets and capabilities with respect to overall
business strategy, determination of what activities to engage in with different suppliers and
the coordinated planning and execution of all interactions with suppliers in order to
maximize the value realized through those interactions.” SRM provides a framework for
companies to manage, develop and evaluate their supplier relationships to ensure that joint
efforts become successful (Herrmann & Hogson, 2001).
Walter, Ritter and Gemünden (2001, p. 366) define value “as a trade-off between benefits
and sacrifices”. Value creation on the other hand can be defined as “the process by which
the capabilities of the partners are combined so that the competitive advantage of either the
hybrid or one or more of the parties is improved” (Borys & Jemison, 1989, p. 241).
According to Huemer (2006) value creation occurs “between as well as within companies in
supply relationships”.
Supply Chain Collaboration, according to Herrmann & Hodgson (2001), “provides for the
efficient exchange of planning information between trading partners to ensure streamlined
5
and optimized management of the flow of parts and materials into the plant.”, According to
many previous studies, collaboration is the key enabler in value creation as value creation
does not happen in isolation (Möller & Törrönen, 2003; Lindgreen & Wynstra, 2005; Borys
& Jemison, 1989).
1.5 Structure of the study
The structure of this thesis is pictured in Figure 2. The thesis starts with the background of
the research. Then, the research questions and objectives are presented. In this part, key
concepts and conceptual framework are set out as well as limitations for this research. In the
second chapter the main theory of value creation is presented and the way it occurs in
supplier relationships. In fourth chapter SRM is presented including definition, motives,
benefits, challenges, barriers and practices.
The empirical part starts in chapter four with the description of research methodology and
data collection followed by empirical findings and results. The fifth chapter focuses on the
discussion between the empirical findings and theoretical background and the research
questions are answered. Finally, in the sixth chapter the comparison of theoretical and
empirical findings is made, research questions are being answered, validity and reliability is
being assessed, conclusions, managerial implications and future research avenues are being
addressed.
6
Figure 2. Structure of the Thesis
1
•INTRODUCTION•Background, research questions and objectives, conceptual framework, limitations and definitions
2•VALUE AND VALUE CREATION•Value creation in SRM, barriers and risks, mitigating risk and sharing value
3
•SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (SRM)•Supplier collaboration, supplier development, motives for SRM, benefits of SRM, challenges of SRM, SRM process
4•METHODOLOGY•Data collection
5
•EMPIRICAL FINDINGS• Collaboration with key suppliers, key supplier development, SRM objectives, SRM benefits, SRM challenges, SRM process and activities, value creation through SRM, SRM barriers and risks, SRM best practices
6
•DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS•Comparison of theoretical and empirical findings, answering the research questions, validity and reliability, conclusions, managerial implications and future research avenues
7
2. VALUE AND VALUE CREATION
The concept of value has been discussed in academic literature for a long time (Irene,
Nudurupati and Tasker, 2010) and it is found, that superior customer value brings a
significant source of competitive advantage (Payne and Holt, 2001; Liu, Leach, & Bernhardt,
2005; Ulaga & Eggert, 2006) Walter, Ritter and Gemünden (2001, p. 366) define the value
“as a trade-off between benefits and sacrifices.” Forsström (2005) argues that the concept of
value can be defined in many ways however it is important to separate the two concepts;
perceived value is considered as a subjective assessment of a trade-off between benefits and
sacrifices whereas value creation is the process where the parties use each other’s resources
to create value. Forsström (2005) continues that there are three perspectives to analysing
value, and they are (1) the value of an offering (monetary value), (2) the value of a
relationship (monetary value and intangible issues), and (3) the value created in a
relationship.
Möller (2006) divides the types of value into four categories; exchange value, relational
value, co-created value, and proprietary value. In this thesis, the focus is on the third and
fourth; relational- and co-created value, a value that is created in a relationship that
emphasizes both; monetary value and intangible issues. Allee (2003, p. 70) states that one
of the major shifts at the strategic level involves “rethinking value to include both monetary
value and intangible value”. Value creation can be defined as “the process by which the
capabilities of the partners are combined so that the competitive advantage of either the
hybrid or one or more of the parties is improved” (Borys and Jemison, 1989, p. 241). From
the value co-creation perspective, how value is created, distributed, paid for, and exploited
is differs significantly comparing to the traditional demand vs supply model; according to
the VCC model buyers and suppliers interact with each other to create value together through
finding new business opportunities. (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014) It is a collaborative,
concurrent, joint, and peer-like process where companies generate value through interaction
(Vargo & Lusch, 2008).
According to Metters and Marucheck (2007), in terms of understanding value creation, there
has been a shift towards a service-oriented perspective. This shift is due to the identification
and development of core competencies for achieving competitive advantage through
8
relationships with key actors who can provide benefits from each other’s value propositions
and competencies (Vargo & Akaka, 2009). Vargo and Lusch (2004) state that benefits
gained from the specialized competencies can be used by buyers and suppliers in the value-
creation processes which position both parties as co-producers of value and give them an
active role in the relational exchanges and coproduction. This view is referred to s service-
dominant logic (SDL), which is found to have strong potential in explaining supply chain
phenomenon (Chakraborty, Bhattacharya & Dobrzykowski, 2014; Caldwell 2009). SDL
explains the exchange protocol as a process through which supply chain actors use specific
key specialized abilities, skills, and competencies together to gain mutual benefit (Callaway
and Dobrzykowski, 2009). Lambert, Garcia, Dastugue, and Croxton (2006) state that the
focus has shifted from the goods-centered view to the service-centered view which relies on
the identification of core competencies for achieving competitive advantage through
developing relationships with key actors in the supply chain such (e.g. suppliers and
customers). Möller (2006) argues that the co-creation of value ranges between the value
created in the supplier-customer dyad to the value gained through the network of
relationships of the supplier and the customer.
2.1 Value creation in SRM According to Huemer (2006) value creation occurs “between as well as within companies in
supply relationships”. According to many previous studies, collaboration is the key enabler
in value creation as it does not happen in isolation (Möller & Törrönen, 2003; Lindgreen &
Wynstra, 2005; Borys & Jemison, 1989). Establishing effective governance is crucial in
unlocking SRM value (Deloitte 2015a).
According to a global study conducted by Vantage Partners in 2006 and 2007 focusing on
customer-supplier collaboration, customers report that they gain on average of 40 percent
more value from working with their most collaborative key suppliers comparing to their least
collaborative suppliers. Results from the supplier perspective are similar; supplier report
delivering an average of 49 percent more value to their most collaborative customers
compared to their least collaborative key customers. (Hughes, 2008) Many companies can
point out occasional success stories on how collaboration with a key supplier has brought a
significant amount of value, however only a few have successfully implemented
9
collaboration with key suppliers into their business. Companies that have succeeded,
recognize that to succeed in collaboration long term requires a major shift in culture
including formalizing new ways of interacting with suppliers and also systematically review
existing business processes and policies to identify which ones decrease collaboration and
delete them. (Hughes, 2008)
PwC (2013) states that the key value drivers for SRM value creation are innovation,
sustainability, leagality, and resilience. Both the buyer and the supplier must be able to
develop and deploy these four capabilities continuously to create value. Trust, empathy,
open communication and a win-win orientation are all elements that are crucial so that a
company can benefit from the capabilities and value that can be created.
Figure 3. Potential Forms of Value from Customer-Supplier Collaboration (modified from
Hughes, 2008)
Hughes (2008) presents a framework (Figure 3) within which management across the
company can identify potential forms of value that can be realized through effective
10
collaboration and more systematic and strategic SRM. Hughes (2008) states that additional
value created in supplier relationships occurs in many different forms depending on the
company, industry, strategy, and market position to name a few. These forms of value can
contribute to top-line revenue, bottom-line savings, or both. The forms of value all
contributing to top-line revenue include access to new technology, shared market views,
access to supplier’s logistics infrastructure, new product development, assistance in entering
new markets, preferred access to capacity during allocation periods. Forms of value that
provide to bottom-line savings include supplier investment or shared investment, capital
expenditure avoidance, joint demand management efforts, most favoured customer pricing,
joint reduction of redundant supply chain activities and joint design for low-cost production.
Forms of value affecting both include joint demand forecasting, information sharing
regarding market and consumer trends, design-to-market cycle time reductions and
reduction in serious adverse business events. (Hughes, 2008) Möller and Törrönen (2003)
propose that the dimensions of the supplier’s value creation in a customer-supplier
relationship can be classified according to efficiency, effectiveness, and network functions.
These three functions are interrelated but distinct conceptually. (Möller and Törrönen, 2003)
Hughes (2008) states that one of the most important things in creating value is to expand the
scope of interaction between buyers and suppliers among their procurement and sales
personnel to cover almost the entire organization. Promoting joint product development,
reshaping business processes for improved efficiency, and sharing and aligning technology
roadmaps are all opportunities for value creation through interaction and require
involvement from many parts of the organization such as research and development,
logistics, manufacturing, and marketing to name a few in both the buyer’s and supplier’s
side. Also, assessing the company’s long-term goals and identifying how and where would
be the best to leverage supplier’s capabilities and expertise require the involvement of
multiple parts of the customer’s organization. The need for alignment and involvement and
the opportunities they create in additional value creation exist at a functional, business-unit
level and across the entire organization. To facilitate an organization-wide alignment one
way can be to set up a cross-business unit committee that meets quarterly to review key
metrics that are defined to emphasize areas of supplier development and improvement which
allows the identification of potential problems across suppliers early on and ensures the
ongoing viability of preferred suppliers. It also finds new collaboration opportunities that
11
involve various suppliers and ensures that the best practices of SRM are share across the
organization. (Hughes, 2008)
Companies often have many suppliers who have significant value creation potential realized
through collaboration. To be able to realize this value companies need (1) close integration
of planning and operations between partners such as extensive information sharing,
coordinated decision making, integration of processes to name a few, (2) to make financial
investments as well investments in time and effort, (3) realize that there is a high degree of
risk of opportunistic behavior from the other party as well as many forms of competitive
risk. (Hughes, 2008)
Even though buyer-supplier collaboration has proven to bring increased value and many
companies aim to collaborate with their suppliers, many companies still keep their supplier's
arm’s length and treat their key suppliers in a way that is very similar to their non-strategic
suppliers. This way, suppliers often align their efforts according to short term sales
objectives rather than long term value delivered to key customers. (Hughes, 2008; Liker &
Choi, 2004) Hughes (2008) states that building and sustaining collaborative relationships
requires willingness and ability to stay away from activities that create short term benefits
but undermine potential opportunities for value creation long-term.
2.2 Barriers and risks
According to Hughes (2008), several customer behaviors prevent suppliers from delivering
more value including a focus on short-term easily quantifiable savings, lack of transparency
about needs and priorities, lack of internal alignment, unwillingness to make long-term
commitments, limited access outside of procurement, not enough access to senior
management, overly rigid RFP’s and bidding processes, lack of respect for supplier
expertise, use of one-sided contract language and customers involving suppliers too late. On
the other hand types of supplier behavior that prevent suppliers from delivering more value
include lack of internal coordination, supplier executive focus on short term revenue and
margin, incentives encourage focusing on short term sales rather than building long-term
partnerships, unwillingness to enter into “at-risk” arrangements, not offering enough
transparency, track record of using information about customers as leverage in negotiations,
12
supplier-sided contract language, tendency to make unrealistic commitments to win
contracts and unwillingness to make long term commitments to customers. Short-term focus,
lack of transparency, lack of internal alignment, and unwillingness to commit long-term have
been seen to have the most harmful effect on customer-supplier collaboration. (Hughes,
2008; Oghazi et al., 2016; Gunasekaran & Ngai, 2004; Faisal et al. 2007)
These types of behaviors often stem from perceived risks and fear from both the customer’s
and supplier’s side. The fear of being extorted is a major barrier to collaboration which
affects the company’s willingness to share information, make investments, enter into
contractual arrangements long-term and work together with suppliers in ways that create a
higher level of dependency and reduce leverage. Both parties are also often afraid of
opportunistic behavior due to the risk that if too much information is shared the other party
can develop into a direct competitor. These risks are real and should not be discounted but
they should not be the only barrier in preventing joint research and development activities
with suppliers. (Hughes, 2008; Oghazi et al., 2016; Faisal et al., 2007)
The majority of companies define and employ performance metrics and incentives for their
key suppliers that are very similar to the rest of their suppliers. Even companies that have
implemented supplier scorecards as a part of their SMR programs usually focus on short-
term objectives and indicators that are easy to measure instead of focusing on the drivers
and realization of long-term value. Due to short-term incentives and metrics and incentives
drive behavior and results they continuously limit collaboration and constrain the
investments (e.g. capital, time, effort) which results in wasted opportunities, and therefore
additional value cannot be realized. (Oghazi et al., 2016; Faisal et al., 2007; Deloitte 2015a)
Collaboration with suppliers can only happen when the degree of alignment and
collaboration is high in both customer and supplier organizations. This has to exist in various
parts of the business including procurement, research, and development, human resources,
and marketing to name a few so that everyone is on the same length when it comes to
collaboration and supplier management and everyone works in a systematic way to
maximize the value of key supplier relationships. (Hughes, 2008)
13
2.3 Mitigating risk and sharing value
Mitigating risks are important when engaging in joint research and development efforts
however companies that are more focused less on avoiding loss of leverage and more on
ensuring that dependence is mutual and those clear opportunities for joint value creation act
as a strong disincentive to avoid opportunistic behavior. These types of companies also
develop a contract that goes beyond traditional purchasing contracts to emphasize
intellectual property ownership, clarify exclusivity and non-compete obligations, define
supplier rights commercialize new technology in specific markets, or after a defined
exclusivity period. (Hughes, 2008; Deloitte 2015a) According to Hughes (2008), best
practices for mitigating risk and sharing value also include working with suppliers to map
out and agree to a decreasing cost curve for new innovative solutions or products due to
efficiencies gained from increased volume and experience and including risk-reward sharing
and/or clear expectations and incentives for performance and service levels into agreements.
Companies that focus on creating joint value must still set prices and determine the ways to
share benefits from collaborative efforts such as joint product development. (Hughes, 2008)
According to Hughes (2008), companies that are most successful in collaborating with their
key suppliers have realized that a significant change in mindset is required. Rather than
focusing on how to gain the most value from suppliers, the focus should be on the fairest
and appropriate ways on how to allocate benefits with suppliers and share jointly created
value with key suppliers. Without using any adversarial or coercive tactics which often
include threats about terminating or reducing the scope of the relationship, both sides should
come up with a mutually acceptable solution based on objective criteria. (Hughes, 2008;
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001)
3. SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT (SRM)
Supplier relationship management is viewed as a business process that includes the
managing of all contacts between a company and its suppliers (Tseng, 2014). The concept
of SRM was first introduced in by Peter Kraljic in Harvard Business Review in 1983, stating
that companies should shift their focus from purchasing as an operation function to supply
14
management as a strategic function (Kraljic, 1983). Even though SRM has received great
interest in academic discussion, there is not one agreed definition (Hughes, 2008). Hughes
(2008) defines SRM as “the systematic, enterprise wide assessment of suppliers’ assets and
capabilities with respect to overall business strategy, determination of what activities to
engage in with different suppliers and the coordinated planning and execution of all
interactions with suppliers in order to maximize the value realized through those
interactions.” Moeller, Fassnacht and Klose (2006) on the other hand argue that SRM is a
process where a specific set of activities are executed including setting up, establishing,
stabilizing and dissolving relationships with suppliers in order to create and maintain value
to both parties. Johnson, Sohi and Grewal (2004) state that these formed relationships can
be stabilized by ongoing discussion and adjustment. Lambert and Schwieterman (2012) view
SRM as a strategic, cross-functional, process oriented and value-creating way and define it
as a business process that provides the company of how to develop and manage supplier
relationships to creating maximum financial performance. Herrmann and Hodgson (2001)
state that the key strength of SRM is its focus on inter-enterprise and cross-department
processes and all roles involved in these processes. According to Day, Magnan, Webb &
Hughes (2008) strategic SRM can be defined as a “structured business process that supports
value capture between customers and suppliers”.
According to Schuh et al. (2014) SRM consists of supplier selection, coordination of supplier
communication, risk and performance management, development initiatives that exceed the
contractual commitments and maximising value across the entire network. It drives supplier
behaviour, manages the relationships between the company and its suppliers, coordinates
divisions, functions and hierarchies of the company related to its supply base. (Schuh et al.,
2014) SRM manages key suppliers and seeks for new ones while pooling buyer experience,
reducing costs and making procurement repeatable and predictable (Herrmann & Hodgson,
2001). The aim is to identify and engage with the right stakeholders to create ownership of
the relationship, drive effective communication and align strategic objectives (Deloitte,
2015b) PwC (2013) defines SMR as a “systematic approach for developing and managing
partnerships. It is focused on joint growth and value creation with a limited number of key
suppliers based on trust, open communication, empathy and a win-win orientation”.
15
Researchers define SRM from different perspectives, but all of them highlight the key
elements that are effective interaction between a company and its suppliers to improve the
company’s performance, bring value and increase the capability to remain competitive in
the market. It provides the opportunity for companies to make the best use of their supply
base by working more effectively with their suppliers to achieve benefits and build
competitive advantage (Schuh, Strohmer, Easton, Hales & Triplat, 2014; Herrmann &
Hodgson, 2001). Schuh et al. (2014) state that SRM includes the top- and bottom-line goals
that include innovation, risk, cost, quality and responsiveness. The aim is to pursue value
through innovativeness and growth beyond cost optimization and to make sure that both
parties achieve their goals so that success can be achieved (Schuh et al. 2014).
In practice, SRM includes a wider scope of interaction with key suppliers which goes beyond
traditional purchasing and fulfilment transactions to establish activities such as joint research
and development, joint demand forecasting and sharing knowledge and strategic information
about market trends to name a few (Hughes, 2008; Liker & Choi, 2004). Often the aim is
also to eliminate interactions that consume great amount of resources but do not bring value
such as using time and energy in making specific instructions for the supplier on how to
execute activities and then auditing compliance. SRM requires setting up the needed
organizational capabilities in order to manage more complex interactions with the suppliers
so that the relationships can be managed strategically as a part of the overall relationship
rather than tactically through different organizational silos such as research and
development, purchasing, manufacturing, and others that involve or affect suppliers.
(Hughes, 2008) SRM is an approach to connect different interests from within the internal
organization and with the extended supply chain (Deloitte. 2015b) It therefore provides a
holistic set of management tools and methods that focus on the customer-supplier interaction
to maximise the value of the supply base (Choy, Fan, & Lo, 2003; Herrmann & Hodgson,
2001).
3.1 Supplier collaboration In the increasing market pressure companies are systematically trying to reduce prices,
introduce new products, shorten cycle times, improve quality and satisfy customers. As
global competition is only getting tougher the only way to survive in the market is to
16
collaborate with suppliers to create as much value as possible. (Trent, 2005) Hughes (2008)
defines that collaboration occurs “when two (or more) companies work together to achieve
one or more common objectives, and/or when they work actively to help each other achieve
their respective objectives." Collaboration aims for an efficient information flow between
the parties to ensure streamlined and optimized management of the flow of materials and
parts into the manufacturing plant including material plans, performance scorecards,
inventory and capacity availability and key performance indicators (Herrmann & Hodgson,
2001) Collaboration pushes companies to rethink traditional ways in handling and managing
supplier relationships (Hughes, 2008). Collaborative relationships are usually formed with
only a limited set of suppliers that provide products or services that are crucial for a
company’s success (Trent, 2005). For collaboration to occur, companies and suppliers need
to view and relate to each other as partners and commit to joint value creation and to enable
each other’s success. (Trent, 2005; Hughes, 2008)
According to Trent (2005), collaborative relationships such as alliances and partnerships
represent the most intensive and sophisticated relationship between a buyer and a supplier.
These types of relationship include wide sharing of resources, joint strategy development
sessions and a wide scope of interaction. Ideally, both parties have a joint vision and
recognize that the value received is significantly higher through the collaborative
relationship than if it did not exist. (Trent, 2005)
Hughes (2008) defines attributes of most and least collaborative relationships. In most
collaborative relationships there is (1) a high level of trust viewed as confidence that a
company’s actions are fair and take partners interests into account, (2) a high degree of
transparency about plans, capabilities and priorities, (3) focus on maximising long-term
value and ensuring partner’s success, (4) conflicts are resolved “on the merits”; partners seek
or create and apply objective criteria aimed at producing reasonable and fair outcomes and,
(5) differences among partners are respected and leveraged as a source of innovation and
value creation. In least collaborative relationships (1) the level of trust is low and there is a
significant fear of opportunistic behaviour by partner, (2) relatively little information is
shared about priorities, plans and capabilities, (3) differences in goals, strategies and
expertise undermine trust and produce friction, (4) focus is on maximising short-term,
unilateral value and, (5) conflicts are resolved on the basis of who has most leverage at given
17
point of time. (Hughes, 2008) According to Möller and Törrönen (2003), in the development
of collaborative supplier relationships both the buyer and the supplier have to make
significant adoptions and commitment of resources.
To succeed and capitalize the value from collaboration two changes have to be made; (1)
broadening the scope of interactions with key suppliers and determine what interactions
occur in the relationship and (2) transforming the ways in which customers and their key
suppliers interact. As seen in Figure 4, Hughes (2008) separates B2B relationships into three
dimensions: dimension 1 including the collective set of interactions between two or multiple
parties, dimension 2 which is the manner in which interactions are conducted and dimension
3 which includes the beliefs and perceptions the parties have about each other. Dimension 1
is viewed as substantive relationships and dimension 2 and 3 conduct together procedural
relationships. Companies that systematically treat their key suppliers as partners rather than
vendors work at both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the relationship. (Hughes,
2008)
Figure 4. Three dimensions of B2B relationships (modified from Hughes, 2008)
Relationship Dimension 3
•Key issues include:
•The amount of trust towards one another
•The level of trusting another's word, actions and intentions
Relationship Dimension 2
•Key issues include:
•Effectiveness of communication
•The level of understanding each other's goals and capabilities
•The extent of relying on persuation rather than leverage and coercion to resolve differences
•The level of efficiency and creativity in solving issues together
Relationship Dimension 1
•Key issues include:
•The amount of value of interactions
•The amount of potential value through additional interactions
•The actions that are done separately but could be done together to increase efficiency and value creation
Substantive Relationship
Procedural Relationship
18
Widening the scope of interaction between the customer and the supplier including joint
innovation and product design efforts at an early stage of the process, developing more
robust contracts and implementing more equitable value-sharing arrangements all present
the substantive side of customer-supplier relationships. While taking the steps to develop the
relationship on a substantive level to succeed, it is important to focus on transforming the
procedural dimension as well. Companies that are the most successful at collaborating with
their key suppliers understand what good relationships entail and what it requires to develop
and sustain them. These companies spend the time and effort required to nurture and manage
the procedural dimension including activities such as trust building, investing in
understanding their supplier’s wants and needs and helping the suppliers to understand their
business on a strategical, operational and cultural level. They also ensure that the
interpersonal interactions that are crucial for effective collaboration include creative joint
problem solving, commitment to fairness and have mutual respect. (Hughes, 2008)
According to Hughes (2008) people often see a good business relationship as a consequence
of the value it creates, however it is the procedural dimension of the company’s supplier
relationships that is a crucial enabler for value creation. Even though interactions and beliefs
of the relationship between a buyer and a supplier influences overtime the value each side
receives, the ways companies work with their key suppliers on the procedural side of the
relationship has a significant effect on the value they realize. (Hughes, 2008)
3.2 Supplier development
Supplier development (SD) is closely related to supplier improvement, which aims to
improve the long-term profitability of a supplier (Lambert & Schwietermann, 2012) It can
be defined as “as any effort by a buying organization to increase the performance and
capabilities of the supplier, which leads to produce positive results for the buying
organization” (Krause, Scannell & Calantone, 2000; Batson, 2008; Abdullah & Maharjan,
2008) SD requires investments from both parties, the byer and the supplier to gain desired
outcomes. Especially buying organisations can be very resourceful for supplier
improvements in the areas of quality, new technology adoption, cost reduction, and delivery.
(Dalvi & Kant, 2015)
19
Supplier development requires that the buying organization completes its supplier selection
activities. According to Dalvi and Kant (2015) supplier development activities include
sharing essential knowledge, experience and skills as well as direct investments in human or
physical assets. These activities have a strong impact on implementation of supplier
development (Li, Humphreys, Yeung & Cheng, 2007). In order to manage the development
process successfully and focus activities and efforts in areas of highest need and potential
for improvement the buyer should identify key areas for supplier development including
specific suppliers, services, products or relationships (Krause et al., 1998).
There are also many critical elements that affect supplier development effort’s success and
according Krause and Ellram (1997) they include the effectiveness of two-way
communication, cross-functional buying firm teams, top management involvement,
emphasis on factors other than price, supplier evaluation and feedback, purchasing a
relatively large percentage of supplier's annual sales, a total cost focus, supplier recognition
and a long-term perspective. Dyer and Nobeoka (2002) emphasize the importance of sharing
information and knowledge learning, because these activities increase the level of mutual
trust among the buyer and supplier.
Krause, Handfield, and Scannell (1998) present two different approaches to SRM; a strategic
approach that aims to develop the company’s competitive advantage and a reactive approach
that aims to detect supplier’s poor performance that becomes a threat to the buying
company’s goals and performance. In strategic approach SRM activities are planned and
they begin before a supplier contract is signed, and in reactive approach the relationships are
approached when an undesired situation occurs. According to Krause et al. (1998) most of
the companies emphasize one approach over the other but some use a combination of them.
Many companies start their supplier development efforts in a reactive way, until they
develop more towards a strategic approach in the aim of continuously improve the supplier’s
performance. (Krause et al., 1998)
In the long run, the strategic approach has been beneficial to the success of businesses that
need suppliers to operate in the market. Suppliers can have a major impact on company’s
processes by driving revenue, and by maintaining and developing a reliable supply base that
produces high quality consistently it affects the company’s growth. (PurchaseControl, 2018)
20
Krause et al. (1998) argue that strategic approach can provide many benefits to companies
such as improved certainty and continuity in buyer-supplier relationships, more responsivity
in the supply chain and better supplier involvement in product development processes,
however it is important that the rewards are line with the investments. (Krause et al, 1998)
3.3 Motives for SRM According to Khan and Nicholson (2014) many companies have spread their value chain
activities around the globe due to wanting to focus on core activities only, however the model
of fine slicing increases the interdepency in the buyer-supplier relationship as well as
relationships become more complex in an international setting. In today’s competitive
market companies are also facing more demanding and well-informed customers, shorter
product lifecycles and a high price erosion which has led to higher level of outsourcing which
can increase complexity and risks due to a growing supply network. (Herrman & Hodgson,
2001; Khan & Nicholson, 2014)
In traditional supplier relationships the communication between a buyer and the supplier is
driven by the operation needs of the buying company which leads to relationships often
lacking transparency and suppliers are struggling to see a cross-functional interface to
cooperate with. In these kinds of situations both parties drive their own good and aim to take
advantage of the situation. (Deloitte, 2015a) Through SRM, companies can gain more clarity
and structure to the buyer-supplier relationships so that they are able to manage them at all
levels, reduce the complexity and increase transparency for both parties. The aim is to
develop two-way mutually beneficial relationships between the company and its suppliers
which include the relationship building and collaborative activities that are targeted to the
most important and strategic partners who are believed to bring most value to the company.
These activities are therefore complementary additional activities that are targeted to most
suppliers such as supplier performance measurement and contract management. (Deloitte,
2015a) In a global and competitive setting, supply chain processes and relationships have to
be integrated and aligned with the company’s strategy and the objective should always be
the improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of supply chains to create maximum value
for final customers. (Morash & Clinton, 1998)
21
According to Lintukangas (2010) there are five objectives of SRM, and they are;
minimization of transaction costs, value creation through internal capabilities and resources,
gaining competitive advantage from cooperative relationships, reducing the risks of supply
dependence and availability, and diffusion of supplier information between business units.
Lambert and Schwieterman (2012) state that the objective of SRM is to “identify key product
and service components, provide criteria for segmenting suppliers, provide supplier teams
with guidelines for customizing the product and service offering, develop a framework of
metrics, and provide guidelines for sharing process improvement benefits with suppliers”.
According to PwC (2013) the main objectives of SRM is to become the customer of choice,
focus on value, leverage on supplier capabilities by involving the suppliers early on in the
innovation and product and process development process and share growth, profits, risks
and investments which can all bring significant benefits.
Previous research has also shown that SRM has an effect on competitive advantage
(Lintukangas, 2010; Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Cousins & Spekman, 2003; Dalvi & Kant,
2015; Zsidisin et al., 2003; Trent, 2005) Herrmann and Hodgson (2001) argue that SRM
supports competitive advantage needed to succeed in the market in three ways; (1) improved
business processes throughout the supply chain, (2) a better architecture that can manage
multi-enterprise processes and (3) facilitates rapid product cycles and new product
introduction. To succeed in SRM, the objectives must be in line with a company’s strategy
and effective control mechanisms have to be developed to allow interaction between
company’s external resources and relational performance (Lintukangas, 2010).
3.4 Benefits of SRM There are many benefits and desired outcomes that can be achieved through SRM. These
benefits have been identified from literature and are listed in Table 1 below.
22
Table 1. Benefits of SRM Benefit Source
Increased value creation Kähkönen & Lintukangas, 2012; Day et al., 2008; Hughes,
2008; Huemer, 2006 Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Dalvi &
Kant, 2015; Liker & Choi, 2004; Möller & Törrönen, 2003;
Moeller et al., 2006; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012; Enz and
Lambert (2012); Deloitte, 2015b
More efficient and streamlined processes Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008; Liker & Choi,
2004; Deloitte, 2015b
Competitive advantage Lintukangas, 2010; Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Cousins &
Spekman, 2003; Dalvi & Kant, 2015; Zsidisin et al., 2003;
Trent, 2005; PwC, 2013
Cost savings (incl. cost of components and materials, lower
process costs)
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Deloitte 2015a; Nokkentved,
2007; Liker & Choi, 2004; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012;
Deloitte, 2015b
Increased flexibility to respond to changes in customer
demand
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Deloitte, 2015b
Faster cycle times Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Deloitte, 2015b
Higher level of coordination, increased market share Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015b
Increased customer satisfaction Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008
Increased supply chain
performance and efficiency
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015a;
Hald and Ellegaard, 2010; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012;
Improved product development (incl. quality and design) Dyer & Nobeoka, 2002; Liker & Choi, 2004; Yeniyurt et al.,
2014; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012; Deloitte, 2015b
Reduced risks in supply chain Deloitte, 2015a; Hughes, 2008; Lambert & Schwieterman,
2012;
Increased business development and innovation Deloitte, 2015a; Hughes, 2008; Heide & John, 1990; Lambert
& Schwieterman, 2012; Deloitte, 2015b
Increased trust in the relationship, loyalty, reduced risk in
opportunistic behaviour
Martin & Grbac, 2003; Hughes, 2008; Liker & Choi, 2004;
Chen et al., 2004; Danese & Romano, 2012; Deloitte, 2015b
Increased responsiveness in the supply chain Liker & Choi, 2004; Prajogo et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2004;
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001
Improved product offering and availability Liker & Choi, 2004; Deloitte, 2015b
Elimination of non-value adding activities Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001
Mitigation of risks Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015a
Improved reliability and reduction of uncertainty Liker & Choi, 2004
Improved knowledge sharing and information flow,
improved information quantity, quality and speed
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Dalvi & Kant, 2015;
Nokkentved, 2007; Dyer & Chu, 2003
Continuous supplier evaluation and performance
improvement, continuous assessment and improvement of
SRM activities
Dalvi & Kant, 2015; Deloitte, 2015a; Deloitte, 2015b
Increased corporate responsibility, sustainability,
environmental efficiency in products and processes
Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Liker & Choi, 2004;
Nokkentved, 2007; Deloitte, 2015a
23
Most companies benefit from managing better their relationships with key suppliers (Trent,
2005; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012). Many researchers (e.g. Day et al., 2008; Hughes,
2008 & Moeller et al., 2006) emphasize the significant opportunities that exist for
maximising overall value and relationship quality through SRM with the selected key
suppliers. Enz and Lambert (2012) also highlight the ability to co-create value as an
additional benefit of cross-functional collaborative relationships with key suppliers. The
core of SRM is to drive benefits for both parties of the relationship to create value long-term
(Tseng, 2014). Increased value creation is recognised as a significant benefit of SRM
(Kähkönen & Lintukangas, 2012; Day et al., 2008; Hughes, 2008; Huemer, 2006 Herrmann
& Hodgson, 2001; Dalvi & Kant, 2015; Liker & Choi, 2004; Möller & Törrönen, 2003;
Moeller et al., 2006; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012; Enz and Lambert (2012); Deloitte,
2015b).
Effective SRM brings cost savings due to improved and streamlined processes, faster cycle
times, improved on-time delivery, increased supply chain performance and efficiency,
elimination of non-value adding activities improved knowledge sharing and information
flow and increased level of innovation. (Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001; Hughes, 2008; Liker
& Choi, 2004; Deloitte, 2015b; Deloitte 2015a; Nokkentved, 2007; Liker & Choi, 2004;
Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012; Hald and Ellegaard, 2010) SRM also increases trust in the
relationship, loyalty and reduces risk in opportunistic behaviour (Martin & Grbac, 2003;
Hughes, 2008; Liker & Choi, 2004; Chen et al. 2004; Danese & Romano, 2012; Deloitte
2015b)
PwC (2013) illustrates the impact of strategic sourcing and systematic SRM on value
creation in Figure 5 below. Contract management supports value creation to a certain point
whereas SRM allows a breakthrough in operational and financial performance whilst
supporting value creation beyond traditional cost management.
24
Figure 5. Impact of SRM on value creation (modified from PwC, 2013)
According to Deloitte (2015a) many benefits from successful SRM can be gained including
reduced costs, driving and monitoring performance, managing risks in the supply chain,
responsible sourcing, ethics and regulatory requirements and supporting business
development and innovation by identifying business opportunities that benefit both
organisations the buyer and the supplier and creates long-term value. Herrmann and
Hodgson (2001) state that cost reductions can be achieved through better information flow
and streamlined business processes due to reduced overproduction, improved efficiency
through elimination of non-value-add activities and leveraging scale with key suppliers.
Collaboration is the key for lowered inventory costs as well as increased customer
responsiveness and sets a foundation for a company for continuous efficiency improvements
such as cost reductions, shorter go-to-market times, risk mitigation and higher potential for
disruptive innovation. (Herrmann & Hodgson 2001; Deloitte, 2015b). PwC (2013) states
that through SRM, companies can gain preferential treatment regarding cost, availability,
access to technology, innovation and risk reduction. It can also improve market
competitiveness through consideration of all relevant elements that determine stakeholder
value and by supporting a growth culture including joint efforts and objectives.
25
SRM also increases flexibility and responsiveness due to greater visibility, communication
and collaborative planning with suppliers which improves the company’s ability to match
production to demand and therefore supports better profitability (Herrmann & Hodgson
2001; Liker & Choi, 2004; Prajogo et al., 2010; Chen et al. 2004) SRM can speed up cycle
times through more efficient and effective communication, automated replenishment,
improved and streamlined processes and real-time measurement to make sure that suppliers
and buyers are working with the most precise and up-to-date information available
(Herrmann & Hodgson 2001). Dyer and Nobeoka (2002) also highlight that close
relationships with suppliers can contribute to company performance by allowing constant
improvements in quality and improved design in the new products. Martin and Grbac (2003)
state that successful SRM can also increase the level of loyalty.
Many researchers such as Lintukangas (2010), Herrmann and Hodgson (2001), Cousins and
Spekman (2003), Dalvi and Kant (2015), Zsidisin et al. (2003) and Trent (2005) state that
SRM can have a positive effect on company’s competitive advantage through cooperative
relationships. According to Herrmann and Hodgson (2001), when companies recognise the
value of managing their supply base as a tool for creating competitive advantage it becomes
the most crucial technology investment a company can make to ensure that the supply chain
transformation, they are implementing will be successful.
3.5 Challenges of SRM
Even though SRM has proven to bring many benefits, developing a strategic cooperation
with most important suppliers can be extremely challenging. (Liker & Choi, 2004; Hughes,
2008; Deloitte, 2015a; Deloitte, 2015b) Hughes (2008) states that there are many barriers
that prevent companies from turning traditional supplier relationships with key suppliers into
powerful collaborative relationships that can bring significant value to both parties.
Therefore, many companies are struggling with their SRM efforts and are having poor or
mixed experiences (Deloitte, 2015b). Most of the time supplier relationships are under a lot
of stress and pressure and so that great results can happen, both parties need to be committed.
(Deloitte, 2015a) These challenges have been identified from literature and are listed in
Table 2 below.
26
Table 2. Challenges of SRM Challenge Source
SRM program implementation, cost/lack of proper
integration
Liker & Choi, 2004; Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015a;
Deloitte, 2015b; Oghazi et al., 2016; PwC, 2013; Lee &
Whang, 2000
Internal stakeholders; unwillingness to transform supplier
relationships
Gunasekaran & Ngai, 2004; Oghazi et al., 2016; Faisal et
al., 2007
Lack of clear internal alignment, SRM strategy and
framework
Deloitte, 2015b; Oghazi et al., 2016; Hughes, 2008; PwC,
2013; Day et al., 2008; Deloitte, 2015a
Lack of communication and information sharing Deloitte, 2015b; Oghazi et al., 2016; Hughes, 2008; PwC,
2013; Lee & Whang, 2000
Lack of business involvement PwC, 2013; Deloitte, 2015a
Lack of commitment to relationship, initiatives and other party's success
Hughes, 2008; Oghazi et al., 2016; Deloitte, 2015b
Focus on cost-cutting & performance only PwC, 2013
Lack of trust & willingness to make long-term
commitments
Deloitte, 2015b; Oghazi et al., 2016
Lack of systematic efforts in building trust & commitment Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015b
Lack of cross-functional involvement Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015b
Stress and pressure in the relationships Deloitte, 2015a
Change in organizational mindset Hughes, 2008; Deloitte, 2015a
Lack of performance measurement, methods & tools Oghazi et al., 2016; Faisal et al., 2007; Deloitte, 2015a
Lack of external alignment Oghazi et al., 2016; Deloitte, 2015a; Deloitte, 2015b
System restrictions Oghazi et al., 2016
Perception of risk, fear, opportunistic behaviour, chance of
failure
Oghazi et al., 2016; Hughes, 2008; Faisal et al., 2007
Lack of formal supplier selection and measurement Bemelmans et al., 2012; Deloitte, 2015a
Lack of formal SRM procedures and harmonized way of
working
Deloitte, 2015a; Deloitte, 2015b; Bemelmans et al., 2012;
PwC, 2013
Late supplier involvement Hughes, 2008
Lack of mutual understanding and empathy PwC, 2013
Lack of competencies and capabilities PwC, 2013
Lack of transparency & high complexity in relationships Deloitte, 2015b
Many times, a company has built a formal SRM program, but then the implementation has
been completed only halfway and for some reason there has been unwillingness to truly
transform the important business relationships (Hughes, 2008). According to Deloitte
(2015b) the main reason for companies struggling to manage their supplier relationships
systematically is the lack of clear framework including aligned guidelines on supplier
27
management. The challenge is that SRM and partnerships are often seen concerning only the
procurement and sales functions and the involvement of business is minimal. (PwC, 2013)
According to PwC (2013) procurement is still primarily seen as a contributor to cost-cutting
initiatives which is often reflected in the way companies implement their SRM program;
with a focus on cost reduction and performance indicators.
Value mapping can be beneficial for companies in shifting focus beyond cost cutting and
allows them to incorporate value drivers that contribute to risk reduction, revenue growth
and asset utilization as well. It defines the exact business objectives for SRM programme
and facilitates the discussion between business and procurement. It is possible that
procurement handles the process of value mapping however it is crucial that the business
defines what value means and the ways SRM can contribute. Before having the value
discussion, it is important to discuss about the organization’s key capabilities and what
expectations the organization has from partners. (PwC, 2013)
Deloitte (2015a) highlights the importance of five steps set that support companies in
overcoming the common challenges and they first highlight the importance of selecting the
right partners. Companies should look more than the strategic and financial fit and consider
the company culture fit, business practices and operating model. The key for success in the
future as well is to think which suppliers could support the company’s future competitive
advantage when making the decisions. The second step is to align internally and externally.
There should be a clear alignment among business stakeholders at all levels so that it is
ensured that they are committed to SRM, understand the requirements and existing
initiatives in and outside the company. The company’s focus should be towards the extended
supply chain considering the cause and for the entire network of strategic suppliers instead
of focusing only to effects to the own organisation. The third step is to develop relationships
that are mutually beneficial. When negotiating with the strategic suppliers it is crucial to
come up with a deal that is a win-win for both parties and that considers immediate actions
and future engagements. To improve negotiation results, company’s staff should be trained
in networking skills, problem solving and conflict management. The fourth step is to select
meaningful KPIs and share information. It is important to select measures that are relevant
to both company’s success based on the mutually agreed strategic objectives. It is also
important to communicate openly in ongoing basis and ensure that information flows in both
28
directions seamlessly. The last step is to manage change. Any strategic relationship requires
changes in every partner organisation and the communication must be planned to make sure
that everyone involved are informed in the goals, scope and their role in the SRM. (Deloitte,
2015a) To be able to execute SRM successfully, a company needs to understand the most
effective supply chain management practices to be able to execute and benefit from them
(Prajogo, 2010).
Hughes (2008) argues that SRM programs can be a great tool for establishing collaboration,
however the implementation is often lacking systematic efforts to build trust and mutual
commitment and cross-functional involvement needed for identifying and executing value
creation opportunities. According to Day et al. (2008), to be able to address the challenges
in successful SRM implementation, clear relationship strategies and great people are needed
to lead the relationships, processes and work streams forward. Each person in the in the
collaboration with the supplier has a significant impact on the total quality of the supplier
relationship and the overall collaboration (Sjoerdsma & van Weele, 2015). To build
successful partnerships with key suppliers require a high level of coordination across several
boundaries within companies as well as a fundamental change of how the entire company
views and interacts with its suppliers (Hughes, 2008). The focus should also be in managing
the informal relationship with the supplier to enhance the information sharing and
capabilities of the suppliers (Sjoerdsma & van Weele, 2015).
3.6 SRM process Hughes (2008) argues that the key for successful collaborative customer-supplier
relationships is not only what parties do together but how they interact and also what they
believe of each other. SRM facilitates the efficient management of the supply base, extends
the visibility to existing and potential future markets and supports selection of the best
strategy for each supplier relationship and purchase category. It also provides continuous
monitoring, evaluation and measurement of performance throughout the relationship and
various service touchpoints and aims to empower the people who are involved in the
relationship steering by transforming their roles and responsibilities. (Nokkentved, 2007)
According to Deloitte (2015b) strategic supplier relationships include many, yet controlled
interaction points between multiple representatives of the organization and its key suppliers.
29
Due to there being various interaction points and people, the supplier relationships should
be clearly aligned across the organization which requires a clear governance structure within
the organization and towards strategic suppliers, a clear SRM strategy and standardized
performance measurements. A clear framework to manage supplier relationships at all levels
and different parts of the organization reduces the complexity of the relationships and
increases the transparency internally and externally. (Deloitte, 2015b)
While supplier relationships are important, they are not equal on value. A significant part of
SRM is to differentiate these relationships and gain understanding of when and where to
apply an appropriate relationship. This differentiation is very important as SRM is coming
increasingly important part of the strategic planning process and therefore managers should
be aware of their supplier’s wants and needs as well as what the buyers should do to exceed
to those expectations. In situations where competitive relationship would be better pursuing
a collaborative relationship will likely bring no value and vice versa; pursuing a competitive
relationship when collaborative would be more fit, value gets unrealized. This differentiation
is one of the key parts of the value supply managers can add to an organization. (Trent, 2005)
According to Krause and Ellram (1997) there are variety of activities in SRM including:
“supplier evaluation, increasing performance expectations, training supplier personnel,
providing regular feedback of supplier performance, supplier recognition, placing
engineering or other buyer’s staff at the supplier's premises, and a capital investment in the
supplier made by the buying company”. Krause et al. (1998) on the other hand emphasize
activities such as: “goal setting, supplier audits, performance measurement, supplier
recognition, supplier training, plant visits and the effort of planting the idea of continuous
improvement in the supplier”.
Trent (2005) determines SRM activities to be: assigning individuals to manage relationships
and to ensure executive managers are assigned to manage the most crucial relationships,
providing accurate and complete feedback on supplier performance, formally assessing the
supplier’s perception of the buyer as a customer, emphasizing trust building actions and
activities, inviting suppliers to be part of an executive buyer-supplier council, providing
resources to develop supplier performance capabilities, practicing cooperative cost
management approaches, involving suppliers at an early stage of product planning and
30
development, requesting supplier improvement suggestions with joint sharing of savings,
implementing SRM information systems, meeting with supplier to understand their
expectations, inviting suppliers to participate in joint improvement workshops, developing
longer-term contract agreements that create mutual value.
PwC (2013) presents (Figure 6) SRM as a six-step business process including (1) supplier-
segmentation, rationalisation, selection and qualification, (2) assessing partnership, (3)
defining strategy and objectives, (4) building and managing partnership, (5) developing and
delivering plans and (6) managing performance and risks. On-going value creation is in the
middle of the process as it is created throughout the different stages of the process. To
formalize this process and to ensure that the entire organization and the extended supply
chain “speaks the same language” when it comes to SRM, it is crucial that the company
develops a cohesive SRM business process that includes the appropriate templates and tools
such as supplier segmentation tool, buyer/supplier perception surveys, supplier account
plans & alliance charter, performance scorecards, improvement charters, structured meeting
templates and benefits tracking tool. As a result of this process, the cost effectiveness of
SRM increases whilst knowledge is being shared and collaboration is encouraged across
organization. (PwC, 2013)
31
Figure 6. SRM as a formalized business process (modified from PwC, 2013)
According to Deloitte (2015a) to enable a company to drive more value through supplier
relationships, SRM is based on specific set of core complementary processes. These
processes are pictured in Figure 7 and include supplier segmentation, governance,
performance management and supplier development. The important steps in delivering
value are alignment within the organization as well as setting up internal governance
processes and clearly assigned ownerships of supplier relationships. It is crucial to involve
the right stakeholders from the business in the process because it is possible that the
ownership of the relationship is outside the procurement organization. (Deloitte, 2015a)
Supplier Segmentation,
Rationalisation, Selection and Qualification
Assess Partnership
Define Strategy & Objectives
Build & Manage
Partnership
Develop & Deliver Plans
Manage Performance &
Risks
On-going Value
Creation
32
Figure 7. SRM core processes to deliver value (modified from Deloitte, 2015a)
Lambert and Schwieterman (2012) divide SRM process into strategic and operational
processes. Strategic processes include strategic decision making, supplier selection and
evaluation whereas operational processes include manufacturing, process development and
financial decision-making. The strategic part of SRM process establishes the supplier
segmentation criteria, identifies the targeted products and service components, allows
suppliers to tailor their offering, determines the framework of the metrics and develops an
appropriate mechanism for sharing process improvement benefits between the parties.
(Lambert and Schwieterman, 2012) Lambert and Schwieterman (2012) present a seven-step
operational process for successful SRM that include the following stages (1) differentiate
suppliers, (2) prepare the SRM team, (3) internally review the supplier/supplier segment, (4)
identify the opportunities within the supplier/suppliers, (5) develop product agreement and
communication plan, (6) implement the product/service agreement and (7) measure
performance and generate supplier cost/profitability reports.
The activities defined by different researchers are similar but emphasize different areas but
all of them agree that the goal of the activities is to seek continuous improvement. Even
though there has been a debate for years in SRM research about the approaches differing
Segmentation
Governance
Performance Management
Supplier Development Data
33
from win-lose- to win-win approaches, Cox (2004) argues that there is not a single way of
handling relationships that is always appropriate, so managers should aim to develop
relationships that are appropriate to the existing circumstances in which the existing power
regime has to be taken into consideration. Trent (2005) agrees; there is not a “one size fits
all” type of buyer-supplier relationship, the appropriate relationship depends on the existing
circumstances and potential future value.
According to Herrmann and Hodgson (2001), there are three important mechanisms to
ensure SRM achieves the desired benefits including support of improved business processes
which streamline execution and improve SRM, next generation architecture which can
facilitate communication and synchronization across enterprises and processes to speed new
product introduction.
34
4. METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the research findings are presented and discussed. The findings and
discussion are based on 10 interviews with professionals working in different positions and
functions, closely with key suppliers. The methodology of this research is provided first and
followed by the explanation of used data collection methods. Then, the research findings are
presented in line with key themes of the thesis; SRM benefits and challenges, SRM best
practices, value creation through SRM, and risks and barriers for succeeding in SRM.
This thesis is conducted as qualitative research and the research methodology is content
analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). According to Alasuutari (2007), the qualitative research
method enables the analysis of data from different approaches and levels allowing deeper
findings to appear. Yin (2003) states that the qualitative method is suitable for research
questions that require explanatory answers. Research based on interviews provides insightful
background along with consequence and reason explanations based on the questions that
cannot be answered with a positive or negative response which leads to a deeper
understanding of the research problem (Kähkönen, 2011).
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research method, that consists of three
approaches; conventional, directed, and summative. All of them are used to interpret
meaning from the content of the text data and therefore adhere to the naturalistic paradigm.
The approaches differ from each other in the origins of codes, coding schemes, and threats
to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis coding categories are acquired directly
from the text data whereas, in directed approach, theory or other relevant research findings
are used to guide the initial coding. In summative content analysis keywords or content is
counted and compared first and after the underlying context is interpreted. (Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005) Content analysis is described as a flexible method for analyzing text data,
but due to the lack of clear definition and procedures, a strict definition does not exist.
According to Kaid (1989), all three approaches to content analysis however require an
analytical seven-step process and the steps are: developing the research questions, choosing
the sample for analysis from the data, defining the categories, defining the coding process,
implementing the coding process, determining trustworthiness and analyzing the end results
of the coding process. (Kaid, 1989) The approach to analysis in this study is theory-driven
35
abductive analysis, which is a combination of data-based and theory-based analysis. Based
on this, the theory has been used as guidance, but the analysis is not based on it holistically.
The analysis then has a significant influence on previous theory and knowledge, but in
theoretical testing, the main emphasis is always on creating thought models from the
phenomenon studied. The definition of the phenomenon under study is then free, previously
dictated by theory, model, or body. (Tuomi and Sarajärvi 2018)
Data for this study is collected by using a semi-structured thematic interview, the purpose of
which is to delve into the interviewee's thoughts and experiences of the event being
discussed. According to the thematic interview, the themes to be covered in the interviews
are determined in advance, but by questions, the form and order in the interviews vary
according to the interviewee. (Eskola and Suoranta 1998; Hirsjärvi, Remes & Sajavaara,
2015) In a semi-structured interview, the questions are the same for all interviewees, but
they are answered openly (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018). The method is chosen because it
allows the interviewees' experiences to be discussed more openly and possibly highlights
features of the experience that would not necessarily be revealed by the ready-made
alternatives. It also emphasizes the individual interpretations given by the interviewees, the
meanings are given, and the factors that led to their emergence. According to the method, it
is also possible to ask more specific questions based on the answers of the interviewees.
(Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2018)
When analyzing the data, the aim is to systematically and objectively examine it and focus
on examining the content, structure, or both (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen 2014). The data may
consist of, among other things, interviews, books, discussions and diaries, as well as other
documents converted to written form. The research begins with the classification of the
material in general into categories, which aims to outline the main content of the interviews
in terms of the phenomenon under study. In order to be able to reach a unified whole, the
aim is to find both congruent and differentiating factors in the data. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi
2002)
36
The empirical data was collected by interviewing professionals working with key supplier
relationships from different companies to gain an understanding of the value creation
through SRM. The potential pool of interviewees was found through professional networks
and LinkedIn. The potential interviewees were approached through email, in which 10 of 11
replied and agreed to an interview. The 10 professionals were chosen for the semi-structured
thematic interview based on their role, category, and experience in years working with key
suppliers. The chosen professionals work in 9 different industries to gain a wider
understanding of the research problem and to allow identification of SRM benefits,
challenges, processes, best practices, barriers, and risks as well as value creation across
industries. The aim is to provide a more diverse and holistic insight into the research
problem. In table 3, the interviewees are presented.
Table 3. Interviewees
Interviewee Years of SRM
experience
Role in the organization Current industry
1 Over 20 years Vice President Cleantech
2 Over 25 years Vice President Groceries & Consumer
Goods
3 Around 15 years Vendor Lead Banking & Finance
4 Around 20 years Merchandise Manager Retail
5 Around 5 years Supply Chain Manager Paper Converting
6 Around 15 years Head of Sourcing Logistics & Supply Chain
7 Around 20 years Head of Sourcing Oil & Energy
8 Around 5 years Purchasing Manager Electrical & Electronic
Manufacturing
9 Around 5 years Purchasing Manager Electrical & Electronic
Manufacturing
10 Around 15 years Vendor Relationship
Manager
Paper & Forest Products
The empirical data was collected during November-December 2020 in a two week-period.
The interviews were conducted via Teams and the length of the interviews varied from 36
37
minutes to 60 minutes. The interviews were held in Finnish to minimize the risk of any
misunderstandings in the questions or answers. The interview covered 28 questions,
including additional or complementary questions. All questions were not asked if an answer
occurred already in a previous question. The interview questions were divided into five
themes: (1) general, (2) supplier collaboration and development, (3) SRM motives, (4) SRM
benefits, challenges and barriers, and (5) value creation. The companies and identities of the
interviewees remain confidential in this thesis and all parties were informed about this when
inviting to participate in the research as well as at the beginning of the interview.
The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed to allow reliable interpretation when
working on the data analysis and conclusions. After completing the transcription, the data
was classified which aimed to outline the main content of the study to find congruent and
differentiating factors in the data. The data was analysed initially by aiming to find patterns
in the responses to draw conclusions on the study results and also to find differences, to gain
a better understanding of how value creation occurs in different companies and industries.
Transcription enables the use of the translated word for word quotes in the analysis and
discussion of this research. However, translation of the interview material can have an
impact on the reliability of the research as during the translation can adopt the original
perspective and meanings.
Reliability of the study means the variation or the similarity of the study outcomes if the
study would be conducted again. Reliability stands for truthfulness and authenticity of the
study, mitigating the impact or environmental factors. In cases where the study has been
conducted again and the same results are achieved, the study is seen as reliable. The validity
of the study means how well the study answers the research questions that were set at the
beginning of the research. (Metsämuuronen, 2007; Yin, 2003).
In this research, the consistency of the study was ensured in multiple ways. Firstly, all
interviews were conducted in two weeks so that the setting remained the same for every
interview. The data collection method, semi-structured interviews, provided in-depth data.
A list of interview questions was sent to all interviewees before the interview to mitigate the
risk of misunderstandings and to allow them to prepare for the interview if they wanted to
do so. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and after the data was coded and
38
categorized. The interviews were translated from the original language to English which has
an impact on the reliability.
39
5. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
In this chapter, the findings and results are introduced based on the primary data collected
through the interviews. According to Yin (2003), the reliability of the research can be
improved through categorizing the data, and therefore the data was when making the
analysis. This chapter is divided into eight main categories: (1) Collaboration with key
suppliers (2) Key supplier development, (2) SRM objectives (3) SRM benefits (4) SRM
challenges (5) SRM process and activities, (6) Value creation through SRM and (7) SRM
barriers and risks, and (8) SRM best practices.
To assess the value creation through effective SRM, the differences in market environments
must be taken into consideration. Market situation, negotiation power, and dependence vary
greatly based on category, the scope of the business, and geographical area. A few of the
interviewees work in industries that are crucial for the function of society which creates a
frame in which the companies work. There are laws and regulations every company must
follow but for these companies that work in these industries, there are more regulations that
have to be followed which puts pressure on suppliers as well as makes effective SRM crucial
for the business to succeed.
There were also differences in the size of the supply base and the number of key suppliers.
The majority of the interviewees stated that they want to keep the number of key suppliers
relatively small so that collaboration could be as effective as possible as the efforts should
be used to the suppliers that are capable and/or have the potential to bring value. In some
industries, where the services were all outsourced, every supplier is a key supplier due to the
importance to the business. The majority of the interviewees managed key supplier
relationships internationally and a few had domestic partners only. There were also
differences in the organizational structure of supply management; some companies had an
operational buying team and an SRM manager/vendor manager who focuses on the
development of the supplier relationship and others had organized in a way where one person
handles the entire relationship.
40
5.1 Collaboration with key suppliers All interviewees described their relationship with their key suppliers as crucial and important
for both parties and typically the relationships have lasted for many years and have long-
term goals. All interviewees highlighted the importance of trust, transparency, and
commitment, as they spend with key suppliers is significant and affects the business.
Interviewee 1 stated that “the relationships with our key suppliers are close, development-
oriented, have a long-term mindset; a good example of this is that we have a three-year
development roadmap where we map our goals, development projects, and steps to achieve
these goals. We also develop new products, tools or processes together that support our
business.” Interviewee 3 described that the key supplier relationships the company has built
are based on trust and the competence of a supplier, as it is the competence that has been
outsourced and developed. Human resources play also a big part in these relationships when
the company has to think and find ways to keep talented people in the processes. Interviewee
3 described that “the collaboration with our key suppliers is based on the contract we have
put together but then only the sky is the limit when it comes to the development on top of the
contract. It depends on the people that are involved in both companies and also which areas
of business we choose to develop and grow together. Usually, the basic collaboration has to
work well so that growth can happen to the next stage of collaboration”.
The majority of the interviewees identified their relationships to be on a good level however
a few, including Interviewee 3 said that the relationships could be better. Interviewee 3 stated
that the challenge is that the industry is used to strive on its own and in a world that is
changing fast key suppliers are needed for a business to succeed and keep up with the change.
The challenge is changing the mindset that key suppliers are truly partners and collaboration
has to happen at every level. Collaboration with key suppliers requires the change of mindset
from business and product development to realize that key suppliers are required for change
and have tremendous potential for future development, especially in the IT business area.
Interviewee 4 stated relationships are at a good level but especially in times of change there
could be more open interaction about the challenges the business is facing due to changes in
the market. Interviewee 4 described as follows; “it is great that we look at the numbers and
discuss a lot about them and the data we gather and make power points and so on but in the
times of change I wish there would be a bit more discussion and fewer power points for sake
41
of doing them. We have communicated about this but sometimes change takes time and all
we can do is to communicate and lead with example by being open, transparent and also
take challenges to the table and talk about them even though it might be a more challenging
topic to the other party to talk about. I believe all topics that are important to your business,
also the challenging ones should be talked about, otherwise, nothing changes.”
All interviewees agreed that trust, transparency, and respect are all features of a great buyer-
supplier relationship. The majority of the interviewees also highlighted the importance of
information sharing. Interviewee 2 said that “we want to be open and transparent in our
actions and share our strategies with our key suppliers as well as share knowledge as much
as possible which allows great efforts in product development. Our mindset is to develop
together but also face facts and challenges together; we want to openly give feedback and
our thoughts to our suppliers and we also want them to do the same, to give us feedback in
which areas we could improve.” Interviewee 7 stated that “all the knowledge that you can
share you should share”. Interviewee 5 along with most interviewees stated that key supplier
relationships usually last for years sometimes even decades, as the aim is to develop long
term.
Interviewee 1 and 2 both emphasized the importance of early supplier involvement in
product development. Interviewee 2 said that “suppliers must be involved in product
development as early as possible to avoid situations where a supplier develops a product
and then we for any reason can’t sell it. We want to cooperate in these projects from start
to finish to ensure the success of the process.”
The level of outsourcing varied between the companies from medium to high-level
outsourcing. Interviewee 7 described that the company has outsourced all their services and
therefore is very dependent on its suppliers, making every supplier strategically a very
important supplier. Interviewee 7 described their key supplier relationships as follows; “we
have put a lot of time and effort to build transparency with our key suppliers so that we
openly discuss with each other, develop together, solve issues together and we avoid blaming
each other at all times and try to listen to our suppliers as much as possible. Due to being
so dependent on our suppliers we also invest time and effort into personal relationships; we
communicate with us as much as possible and vice versa. We have a relatively small supplier
42
base but thinking of the international companies I have worked in before; there is just not
enough time to build relationships like these with many suppliers so in those environments
you have to think about which suppliers are the ones you put your effort in.” Interviewee 8
said that the relationships with key suppliers are important for both parties, of course,
however, the company avoids being in a single-sourced situation as not many suppliers are
entirely irreplaceable even though they are important.
Interviewee 7 emphasized that in cases when the collaboration is simply not working and
both companies are locked in a contract that does not serve either party it is important to try
to quit the contract and move on. Interviewee 6 said that in situations where it can be seen
that the collaboration is not going anywhere, and issues cannot be fixed it is important to
quit then and not later.
5.2 Key supplier development All interviewees stated that they make development efforts their key suppliers. Interviewee
2 said that “we aim to do supplier development with all our key suppliers, but it depends
also on the capability and motivation of the supplier.” All interviewees said that they have
a structured process of supplier development which includes regular meetings with the
supplier throughout the year, typically quarterly, every six months, or once a year. In practice
interviewee 2 described their process as follows: “We keep workshops twice a year where
we put together product development, sales, and customer analysts and put our brains
together to see where we are and where we want to go. We have our data and analyses from
where the market is going but we also want the supplier to share their views where the
market and the world is going so that we can share our views and we might learn something
new.” Interviewee 7 said that the process for supplier development is structured and includes
regular meetings with the supplier where strategies and views on the market development
are shared and even though the meetings have bureaucracy and the agenda might not seem
very inspiring, the meetings are a crucial part of building a solid foundation with the supplier.
Development ideas are often fostered in these meetings when discussions are ongoing
systematically and regularly, first, we share our development ideas with the supplier and
vice versa and then we figure out if there is an idea we can progress together.
43
The length of the development projects depends on the area of business and time frame. In
cases when there are issues in the buying company’s forecasting or supplier’s delivery on-
time it has to be fixed as soon as possible or at least in a month or two, whereas product
development projects on the other hand can take approximately six months to two years.
When aiming for innovations the horizon can be up to decades, for example when trying to
develop innovation to the production of a product or a service the investment for the supplier
can be up to decades which is why development processes must be are managed correctly
from start to finish in cooperation with the supplier.
The results companies have gained through supplier development are significant. The
majority of the interviewees mentioned cost reductions through improvements in the supply
chain and production. Interviewee 3 highlighted also the new technological innovations that
have been made as well as better service performance to customers. Interviewee 3 stated that
“We have gained significant improvement in on-time delivery which is a top priority to us,
it is crucial that our services are up and running at all times for our customers and the
society as well, whenever we have issues with our products or services product development,
business functions and suppliers all know that we have to fix the situation as soon as
possible.” According to interviewee 7, new business ideas are usually developed in
situations where the market is going through changes and someone would have to be daring
enough to take a risk to try something new. Through supplier development, these situations
can be identified, and the right supplier can be found to progress a new idea to see if it would
work. Interviewee 2 described that the company is launching a supplier improvement
appraisal system in which suppliers can share development ideas regarding product and
process development and the company goes through them. Through sharing development
ideas, the supplier can improve their production efficiency and gain more business from the
buying company. The aim is to identify and develop win-win solutions.
All interviewees highlighted the importance of trust-building in supplier development. To
succeed in supplier development the basic elements have to take place if there are issues in
the everyday business it is challenging to gain and build trust which is needed for the efforts
to grow to the next stage. Interviewee 7 stated that “trust-building slow and steady; it starts
from the very first interactions with a supplier. Of course, every company has information
that cannot be shared but all information that can be shared should be shared and the
44
relationships should be free from politics. We also put a lot of effort into our supplier
selection to make sure that our company cultures match because if the buyer and the supplier
have very different company cultures or agendas it is really hard to build a solid foundation
for supplier development. In my opinion, company culture has always a greater effect on
collaboration than country’s culture.”
5.3 SRM objectives The majority of the interviewees stated that SRM aims to gain more clarity and structure to
buyer-supplier relationships so that they are manageable at all levels, reduce complexity and
increase transparency for both parties. The aim is to develop mutually beneficial
relationships with key suppliers which include relationship building, maintaining, and
developing activities that are targeted to the most important strategic partners that can bring
the most value.
All interviewees highlighted the aim of long-term cost reductions through effective SRM.
Interviewee 1 said that the goal is to build confidential cooperative relationships with key
suppliers which enable value creation together where both parties can share knowledge and
expertise. Through SRM, the focus is on constant improvement of on-time delivery, quality,
innovations, and efficiency. Interviewee 2 highlighted the aim of wanting to improve joint
forecasting, which would improve product availability which is important to succeed in the
competitive market with demanding customers. Interviewee 2 continued that the company
has taken efforts to improve cost efficiency by shortening its supply chain by focusing more
on end-to-end (E2E) processes, but it is crucial to make development in this area together
with the supplier because when another party optimizes their actions to decrease costs it
increases the costs of the other party which is not a feature of a long-lasting value-creating
buyer-supplier relationship. Interviewee 5 said that the aim is also to look for business
development opportunities with key suppliers as cooperation is the key for long-term
success. Interviewee 3 stated that the SRM objectives come from the company strategy and
the important factor is the aim of wanting to be a great partner that great suppliers want to
cooperate with. Interviewee 3 continued that the business needs great suppliers to collaborate
with as the industry is in a transformation and is changing rapidly which makes it important
that the company is attractive to great suppliers as well.
45
All interviewees stated that an important objective of SRM is to thrive for improved quality
of products and services. Through SRM and supplier development it is possible to develop
business together and perform better in the market. Better quality appears through product
and service innovations, fewer defects, and more satisfied customers. Interviewee 8
described as follows: “One of our biggest motivators for SRM is a quality improvement as
quality issues have big effects on the whole business; quality issues take the money and a lot
of time resources in figuring out what has gone wrong and in the worst case can stop an
entire production line, ours or the customers. Quality also includes on-time delivery; we
want our suppliers to deliver when they promise and if not, communicate about it as soon as
possible. Issues with on-time delivery can reflect directly to production. The main motivator
for us is to get what we have ordered with good quality when we need it and have a good
communication flow throughout the process.”
Interviewee 10 described the company’s motives for SRM as follows; “we don’t do SRM to
gain everything from the contract as possible; key suppliers are those suppliers who
understand our business needs, can bring new development ideas and solutions, can develop
our services which requires that they are familiar with our business structure, the market,
and the overall business environment. Our key suppliers bring solutions to the table to
improve cost-effectiveness even though sometimes it does not align with their benefits, but
they do it anyway because they look at our collaboration long term. With our key suppliers,
we trust that they are willing and able to share risks with us with new development agendas
and it will pay off. Though SRM all of this is possible, without it would not be.”
5.4 SRM benefits
Interviewees stated that they have gained significant benefits through effective SRM.
Interviewee 1 described his experiences as follows; “in my past two companies that I have
worked for, we managed to improve supplier on-time delivery significantly and through that,
the productivity of our factories improved as well as our customer satisfaction. Also, the
quality of our suppliers improved; defect for million-meter looked very different after our
SRM efforts, we gained cost reductions, higher quality products for lower prices and
increased the level of innovations.”
46
All interviewees brought up cost reductions as a benefit of SRM. Through improved
processes and supplier development, it is possible to increase efficiency and develop
innovations that bring cost reductions to both the buyer and the supplier. Through SRM it is
possible to handle and manage supplier relationships in a collaborative way instead of
threatening and abusing suppliers. Many interviewees such as interviewee 6 stated that SRM
allows the business to be more flexible and secure in changes in the business environment
or changes in the market. Especially in the world we live in today with Covid-19 pandemic
flexibility and security so that the supplier has a function plan how to work even though
pandemic would hit the factory is important. Interviewee 7 highlighted that through effective
SRM, the company gets what the company wanted to buy, and in best cases, cost-
effectiveness improves, better quality and potential new business ideas are fostered to name
a few. Interviewee 9 said effective SRM has a significant role in improving transparency
and effective communication which leads to better business performance. Interviewee 10
stated that both parties understand their responsibilities better so that things are not just
thrown to the supplier as demands, rather the supplier is respected and appreciated and as a
partner.
All interviewees stated that effective SRM allows value creation with the supplier to the
buyer, supplier, and customers. SRM aims to manage supplier relationships at all levels,
increase transparency and effective communication, foster new business ideas, and aim to
create a competitive advantage. All interviewees agreed that effective SRM affects
competitive advantage. The effect was seen most significant in companies where the level
of outsourcing is high and the larger the amount of spend on supply is from the total sales,
the more important SRM is due to it affecting results, sales as well as quality, on-time
delivery, and innovations. Interviewee 7 described that in businesses where over 80% of
total spend goes to outsourcing, SRM is the key enabler to business development,
improvement, and the needed force in moving forward. Interviewee 2 stated that SRM has a
significant effect on competitive advantage.
5.5 SRM challenges The interviewees identified many challenges regarding SRM. Many interviewees stated that
one of the biggest challenges to overcome is when the supplier’s values and/or strategy is
47
very different from the buying company and they do not match. Another challenge is when
long-term goals or interests do not match and both companies are locked to the cooperation
due to the contract that has been made and the situation does not work for either party.
Interviewee 7 said that “biggest challenges come from contracts that are outdated and it
does not serve anyone’s interests, the supplier's strategy might have changed and they do
not want to provide the service anymore and we are struggling with the fact that we are not
getting what we wanted. There is no other solution really than part as friends if possible;
these situations are always unpleasant but the only healthy thing to do is to part ways.”
Interviewee 10 agreed that contract negotiations can be challenging due to lack of internal
commitment; people within the organization that the supplier delivers for or is linked to
should be involved and understand the role of that supplier in the process but it is sometimes
very hard to get internal stakeholders in line.
Multiple interviewees also highlighted the challenges that arise with international suppliers,
Interviewee 9 said that in a rush, it is sometimes difficult to get a response as soon as needed
due to time difference. Interviewee 9 also stated that cultural differences in communication
are sometimes a challenge. Interviewee 7 on the other hand highlighted the importance of
company culture and stated that it is more important for effective SRM than country’s
culture. Interviewee 7 continued; “another challenge is that if we have made a mistake in
selecting a certain supplier and our company cultures do not match and we just cannot find
a common ground to work with, sometimes it is extremely expensive to get out of the contract
and change the supplier. In cases where it is possible to part ways that are great but if not,
it is very challenging but needed to build a framework that works for both parties at least at
some level but often requires changing contact persons from both sides. It is important to
understand that in these situations it is not just the supplier’s fault, it is also our fault just as
much”.
Interviewee 1 stated that “one of the biggest challenges I have faced in my career in SRM is
people and relationships, sometimes we just can’t get the service level from the supplier to
the level we want and need it to be even though we have tried everything we can think of.
Then the only thing left to do is to ask the supplier to change the responsible account
manager”. Interviewee 3 said that it only takes one person that is not committed to the
collaboration to downgrade the relationship and in extreme cases, there is no other way than
48
to switch people to more suitable ones. Before changing the people involved it is always
important to try to fix the situation first by communicating and trying to figure out what is
going wrong in the relationship but it requires trust so that people open up to you and are
committed to trying to improve the relationship. Interviewee 6 highlighted also the challenge
with people that are not committed and sometimes purposely make the cooperation more
difficult. Internally there are many ways to address these issues and ways to fix them but in
cases where the issue is on the supplier’s side possibly in another country the ways to affect
the situation are limited and usually end up in demands of changing the contact person from
the supplier's side. It is crucial to try to handle these types of situations as well as possible
so that the supplier feels respected and valued anyway due to key suppliers being very
important to the business. Interviewee 10 stated that getting the internal organization
committed to SRM efforts and to understand the meaning of it is probably the biggest
challenge of all. Interviewee 10 described as follows “when it comes to negotiating contracts
the challenge is that business thinks that supplier management business area determines the
goals for the supplier which should not be the case, the business should be just as committed
to figuring out how the supplier fits our business needs and processes and what is the future
potential of this supplier. Sometimes people do not understand that the supplier is not only
one who should be held accountable, business should be just as much accountable as the
supplier”.
The lack of a clear framework internally was also seen as a challenge. Interviewee 1 said the
following “in the beginning we didn’t have a clear framework for SRM; processes and
practicalities were unclear as well as roles and responsibilities. In these types of situations,
there were multiple people in contact with multiple contact people at the same supplier at
the same time giving a slightly different message which led to confusion. Internal functions
and cooperation of the buying company needs to be top-notch before anyone can assume the
supplier cooperation could be top-notch. SRM is the key to improve this as it all comes down
to clear processes, roles and responsibilities”.
Interviewee 5 brought up the challenges that come from sudden changes in the business or
the market. When a business area grows suddenly and fast, or market demand increases or
decreases quickly it puts pressure on one business to adapt to these situations as soon as
possible which puts pressure on the supplier relationships as well. Interviewee 6 also stated
49
that the current business environment has changed in a way that many customers are
expecting a certain service level that has not been around in the past 20 years; today it is
very normal that the customer shares a need and the partner gives an offer and if the customer
accepts the offer that is great but in many cases, the customer only shares forecasts that might
be changing and expects the supplier to deliver to that anyway. The market environment has
become so hectic that some clients sometimes do not want to commit to anything but of
course the due to them being often big clients the company aims to deliver for them anyway.
It is like a lottery in many ways sometimes it goes right and sometimes it does not, in the
worst-case scenario the company as raw materials that go to waste as they cannot be used
after a certain period which equals large losses. There is a limit in how many risks like those
can be taken but if the materials aren’t ordered according to the forecast even though the
client is not committed, and the forecast comes through the order cannot be fulfilled. It is
challenging to build a framework and processes to develop the supplier relationships further
in constantly changing situations, it is hard to know what the company wants and where the
company wants key supplier relationships to progress if customers do not know what they
want. The ways to improve the situation is to communicate with the sales department
continuously so that they clarify to the customers that certain actions are required for
successful collaboration and that has to be clarified to all 50+ people involved which often
is the reality with big companies as customers.
Interviewee 2 stated that the mindset with key suppliers is always to develop and deliver
products that customers enjoy so if the supplier does not deliver on time or the quality is not
on the agreed level it is very disappointing. Contracts aim to protect from these types of
issues however it comes down to the willingness to perform well. Another challenge is that
for domestic suppliers the company is a big and important client but for international
suppliers, the Finnish market is smaller, so the key factor and also a challenge is how to
become an interesting partner for international markets as well.
5.6 SRM process and activities There were similarities in the SRM processes in the companies but also differences.
Interviewee 6 stated that “the amount of money we spend on supply from our turnover is
significant so the role of SRM in our value chain is crucial to our business. Due to this we
50
rate our suppliers and think in 80-20 way; where we spend the most of our money there, we
put our biggest efforts” Interviewee 9 described “there is the buyer-supplier setting when
managing supplier relationships, but we do not want to list our needs to the supplier and
just expect them to fill them. We want the process to be a two-way street; we aim to listen to
our supplier's wants and needs and aim to respond to them and vice versa. Also, systematic
and regular communication is very important as well as sharing our forecasts with our key
suppliers so that they can plan their production better.”
Multiple interviewees said that they collect feedback from the supplier about their
cooperation so that any issues and development areas can be identified. Interviewee 2 said
that the company collects feedback from its supplier every month but on top of that another
company does a larger survey once a year including 6 areas; cooperation, future views,
sustainability, supply chain, and two more. The suppliers can see how we rank the company
comparing to other suppliers in the same product category and the company can see how we
rank in the same areas with the suppliers comparing to their competitors. The rapport
includes sections such as “partner’s professionalism and ability to cooperate in challenging
situations” and the ratings can be seen across industries. Interviewee 1 said that the company
has unofficially collected feedback from its key suppliers regularly but aims to collect
feedback also more officially after the basics are working well. Interviewee 9 said that in
meetings that are held quarterly, one section is about cooperation, and in that part, the
company always asks the supplier if there is anything that they can improve so that sharing
feedback would be a two-way street. Interviewee 9 described as follows: “We want to hear
the supplier’s feedback on us; what is working well in our cooperation and what is not.
There is always something to improve and if we do not ask then we would not know how to
improve.” Interviewee 10 however said that asking for feedback is important and valuable
however issues can arise that require a lot of work from the buying company so it is wise to
be mindful of what to ask, there is no point in asking if the company is not ready to take
actions to overcome challenges that arise. The company should ask for feedback in business
areas where it is ready to tractions in developing and improving the cooperation.
All interviewees mentioned the importance of measurement as a part of activities as
measurement shows how well the company and the suppliers performing in different areas
of business and also identifies if any issues have to be addressed or any areas to be
51
developed. The measurement areas differed slightly depending on the industry and the
company in general. It was addressed that nothing should be measured for the sake of
measuring but rather areas that are important for the business. Most interviewees said that
scorecards are filled once or twice a year and other key measurements are followed on a
daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Depending on the company meetings with the suppliers
are held weekly, bi-weekly, or once every three weeks. Interviewee 6 said that the company
evaluates the supplier’s performance in three categories; on-time-delivery, quality, and co-
operation and every category has different areas that are scored. The areas of the category
co-operation have been developed to serve every supplier regardless of which service or
product the supplier produces. The areas are co-operation (response time, reply accuracy
clear contacts willingness and feedback), flexibility (fast changes, delivery time, capacity
and network), technical competence (quality, machines, and equipment, network,
engineering, know-how, and business understanding), cost competence (one offer best price,
payment terms, discounts, price validity), innovation and proactive actions (continuous
improvement, technical and functional benefits, cost benefits, delivery benefits, outlook
benefits, logistics benefits), production location and factory condition (distance, global
network, quality level, lean thinking level, environmental) and additional points (additional
points from significant innovation, proactive actions or support). The scorecard aims to sum
up the previous year and set focus areas for the next and on the results from the measuring
sheet, actions are lined accordingly. The reason there are also areas for subjective
measurements in terms of the co-operation is that there have been suppliers in the past that
have scored full points in every other area but still, the company has not been happy with
their performance. Measuring co-operation also on a subjective level allows both parties to
look at the relationship and identify what is working well in the relationship in that area and
what areas would require improvement. Even though the scorecard is filled approximately
once a year the different areas are followed up throughout the year in weekly or monthly
meetings or another form of communication.
The interviewees identified development initiatives in their SRM processes. Interviewee 1
said that since they are at the beginning of implementing clear SRM strategy, categorization
and category strategies, supplier segmentation, performance measurement through supplier
scorecard and its rating, supplier frame agreement templates and implementation, contract
coverage and decreasing the total number of suppliers are all on the table. Interviewee 2
52
stated that there is a need for a supplier scorecard that would update automatically which
would improve the real-time information sharing and decrease the level of manual work.
Interviewee 2 described “at the moment the information in regarding the supplier’s key
numbers is not in real-time as we have to collect the data manually from different systems.
I would prefer an automated system that would show supplier scorecard including the key
numbers such as supplier’s performance, how the supplier’s products are performing with
customers, customer feedback, and so on and the supplier would see the same information
in real-time”. Interviewee 5 said that the SRM activities could be more systematic and
attention should be given to small raw material groups and small suppliers to gain cost
efficiencies and synergies through those areas as well. Interviewee 10 said that areas are
needing for development starting from contract template and governance policies, SRM
tools, performance measurement, and reporting which are developed throughout the year.
5.7 Value creation through SRM The value created in supplier relationships occurs in many different forms depending on
many factors such as the company, industry, strategy, and market position. All interviewees
agreed that collaboration is the key to maximum value creation with key suppliers. To be
able to allow this maximum value creation, SRM needs to be emphasized at all levels of the
organization. Interviewee 3 stated that the aim of value creation through SRM is to achieve
more together than alone, “the value creation should be mutual otherwise it won’t last for
the longer term. In cases where value creation doesn’t happen, SRM is not on a sufficient
level in a company.” Interviewee 7 stated that there needs to be value created through SRM,
due to it being the Return on Investment (ROI).
All interviewees stated that value occurs in different levels of the business and is created in
everyday activities as well as in strategic level, however it is sometimes hard to identify all
the touchpoint where it occurs. Interviewee 1 stated that “when SRM is top-notch value
creation happens in every level; at operative level (buyer-level), strategic level (category
management-level) and top management-level”. All interviewees agreed that due to value
creation occurring at every level, SRM goals and practices should be present at all levels of
the company.
53
What value meant to interviewees had similarities but also variations depending on the
business and industry. Interviewee 1 stated that the aim is to perform better through
improved on-time-delivery, customer satisfaction, cost reductions, better quality, improved
internal processes, improved efficiency, and through all of these areas the company would
get reductions in total cost. Interviewee 7 said that value creation allows the company to stay
in budget or even undercut it, higher quality than determined, and insights that key suppliers
can provide through the supplier’s expertise and technical capabilities. All interviewees
agreed that value created through knowledge sharing, innovation, and joint development
efforts have a significant effect on the business.
Interviewee 4 highlighted that one of the most significant forms of value for the company is
the flexibility and loyalty that can be achieved through SRM with key suppliers. In times of
change such as a pandemic or any other worldwide crisis which affects the businesses in a
big way, cooperation with key suppliers is crucial. Interviewee 4 said that “in a crisis like
this (Covid-19), our key suppliers have met us half-way for example in allowing us to cancel
some of our orders or decrease the amount ordered which has been very valuable to us. Due
to them being our key suppliers they care for us and want us to be their client in the future
as well and I think this is a perfect example of what kind of value SRM can create and a
great example of great cooperation that has been developed through systematic effort.”
Interviewee 4 continued that due to Covid-19 being far from over it guides the company to
order from key suppliers that can be flexible and share risk with the company so it’s
important to be flexible when possible and therefore the company aims to be flexible towards
the supplier. Interviewee 5 said that a good example of value creation is that through
cooperation with a key supplier a product is developed in a way that works better in the
production line; often the cost structure stays the same but the production efficiency
increases which leads to more business to the buyer and the supplier. Through knowledge
sharing and technical capability, this kind of product development is possible. Another
example is that the supplier provides warehousing or better production planning according
to the market needs which increases flexibility and extra revenue.
Interviewee 3 said that the biggest effect on value creation is the people involved; even one
person that is not willing to put the effort needed on either the buyer’s or the supplier’s side
can downgrade the entire relationship. The value created is the total of the elements in the
54
relationship and the last layer is dependent on the people and in which positions they are in
and also what kind of knowledge they have of the business and the market we are in.
Interviewee 2 stated that long term vision, transparency, and cooperation are all crucial when
aiming for maximum value creation; “obviously it would be great to have everything served
to us ready to go so that we would not have to put the effort in it but it does not work like
that due to in that case the supplier would not know what we want and how we see things.
For example, a supplier might invest in developing a product or a model that in reality would
be too expensive for the market or the margins would be too low. Maximum value creation
is based on shared views, efforts, and value co-creation; the value needs to be for all parties
involved so for us, the supplier, and to our clients and hopefully, the value would keep on
going onwards from that”.
Interviewee 3 and 7 highlighted the importance of trust as the most important factor in value
creation. Interviewee 7 described: “trust and open communication is everything and it comes
down to supplier selection; we should already at that point know where we are heading,
where the market is heading and what we might need next and try to find a partner who
would have the most future potential and also would be future-oriented. If the partner is not
future-oriented and they are happy where they are it is very challenging to get development
ideas, whereas a partner who has a strong development-mindset or potential can inspire us
as well to do better. Not every supplier is the same, so it is crucial to pay attention to these
things when choosing the right partner.” Interviewee 3 continued that the supplier, as well
as the buying company, needs to have the right competence and knowledge to allow value
creation to happen as well as put effort into organizing the teams and people in the best way.
After all, it comes down to people and also their personalities; how innovative they are, and
how well they work together. When thinking about maximum value creation it is important
to also identify the right people internally but also try to find the right people at the supplier’s
side so that the cooperation could be as smooth as possible and value creation could happen.
Interviewee 3, interviewee 5, and interviewee 6 all emphasized the effect of transparency
and communication to value creation. In achieving maximum value creation there cannot be
a needs list towards the supplier but rather a mutual understanding of each party’s needs and
a willingness to fulfil them. Open communication is the core in understanding other party’s
55
needs as there should not be any fear to suggest development ideas and both parties should
feel comfortable in challenging each other to allow development to happen. Interviewee 6
described “there is a lot of development-talk around however to achieve real development
realized in value it requires a lot of work and requires a true understanding of other party’s
needs and willingness to address those needs”. Interviewee 6 agreed that it requires the right
people to allow maximum value creation to happen and also it is beneficial that the supplier
understands the company’s business and market, as well as product or at least, shows
motivation and interest in wanting to grow and learn about it. The more familiar the supplier
is about the company’s ways of working, business environment, and products the easier it
becomes to suggest development ideas and go forward with them. Interviewee 9 emphasized
transparency, openness, communication, trust, and continuation as important factors for
maximum value creation. SRM should not rely on overcoming a crisis here and there, it
should be aligned long-term so that both parties can trust that the other party is just as
committed as they are. Interviewees 7 and 9 both stated that when facing issues with the
supplier the focus should not be on finding out who to blame rather the focus should be on
resolving the matter together and possibly help the supplier if the matter is on their end.
5.8 SRM barriers and risks Many interviewees stated internal stakeholders can become barriers to successful SRM in
case they do not understand the importance of it or if they do not understand what the
company is trying to be achieved through it. To overcome this barrier SRM needs to be
emphasized throughout the organization and involve all relevant stakeholders as much as
possible so that internal stakeholders are committed. Many interviewees also recognized that
lack of transparency about needs and priorities as well as lack of internal alignment are
barriers to overcome in SRM. It is important to clarify roles and responsibilities so that it is
clear what is expected which makes it easier for everyone to be in line and clear towards the
supplier about the collaboration. Interviewee 6 said that unwillingness to make long-term
commitments from the customer's side makes SRM challenging; due to fast changes in the
market environment clients are giving estimates that might not be very accurate and are
unwilling to commit to making short- or long-term commitments that mirror straight to SRM
as it is hard for the company to make a long-term commitment to its suppliers when the
situation in the customer’s side is unsure. Interviewee 10 said that contacts can become
56
barriers for value creation when they are too complex and outdated, hence they should be
made understandable and the contract templates should be easy to follow and updated
regularly and used as a tool in building a foundation to the collaboration.
The appropriate approach to risks in terms of value creation through SRM depends on the
situation. In supplier development with new business ideas the measures depend on which
party makes the larger investment, is the company the suppliers only customer currently or
is there potential for more customers later on, which party invests more in the first stage, and
does the other party invest more in the second stage and so on. Interviewee 1 stated that the
contract needs to be clear in terms of intellectual property rights (IPR) from the beginning
so that it is clear; usually the buyer/customer gets IPR and the supplier gets the business
from the specific product. All interviewees highlighted that the collaboration with key
suppliers is highly confidential and has been inserted in contracts and it has to be respected
so that all communication and other activities such as development efforts stay confidential.
Confidentiality is the key to transparency; transparency cannot exist if interactions are not
protected on paper and are also respected. Interviewee 2 described “in cases where a
supplier approaches us with an idea it is always highly confidential, and we do not consider
using that idea for example to our private labels. The idea is owned by the company that
presents it to us and if we proceed with that idea the supplier gets the business from it and
when the product hits the market, the market responds. It is very important to respect these
types of contracts as they are legally binding but also every successful collaboration is based
on trust; if you do not have trust you cannot have a successful collaboration.”
5.9 SRM best practices All interviewees highlighted that there are best practices in every area of SRM, but they
focused on the most important ones to value creation. All interviewees emphasized that the
key factors for successful key supplier relationships are trust, openness, communication, and
honesty. Interviewee 1 and 2 highlighted the importance of early supplier involvement as it
is crucial to involve the suppliers in product development processes as early as possible so
that they can affect the type of product will be developed, the type of materials will be used,
what kind of design is used so that the product is also made to fit the production as effectively
as possible which has brought a lot of benefits. Interviewee 2 added that early supplier
57
involvement also brings a lot of value to both parties due to knowledge sharing; it is easier
to develop a great product together rather than alone as the product will be produced at the
supplier’s end.
Interviewee 1 also emphasized the importance of SRM practices; buyers should have
operative meetings with the supplier every week where orders, deliveries, and on-time-
delivery are addressed, category or sourcing managers should have meetings every month
and executive-level meeting every year where leadership team from both companies meet
and plan the collaboration long-term, share strategies and communicate about the direction
the companies are heading. These types of practices ensure that the companies are headed
in the same direction and if not, actions can be made. Interviewee 2 emphasized also top
leadership involvement as well as communication and involvement on every level; it is
important to keep the communication flowing on every level to review scorecards to see how
everything is going and if there are any issues, to address them. In supplier development, it
is crucial that the right people in terms of product development are involved in the meeting,
so that the cooperation goes beyond buyers and account managers to get different views.
Interviewee 5 said that the estimates given to suppliers need to be realistic so that the
collaboration can be built on a solid foundation. Typically, buyer-level work is operative
and the higher level the collaboration goes the more strategic it becomes; especially
decisions regarding investments and development projects come from a higher level.
Interviewee 6 said that the company should try to identify as soon as possible the key
suppliers that have the most potential in going forward and put the effort into them. Data
and numbers bring a lot of value, but the people are equally as important, with the right
people the possibilities are endless for collaboration. The roles of who is the customer and
who is the supplier are important to clarify but still, the buyer needs to be humble and helpful
towards the supplier as it can affect the collaboration a lot as well as the amount of business
that can be gained with the supplier. Interviewee 6 continued that there must be a trusting
environment at the workplace so that people can make decisions independently and are not
required to ask everything in terms of interacting with key suppliers. The team members are
professionals and know how the everyday work is done properly, it is a sign that something
is now working if guidance at all times is needed.
58
Expectations management was also seen as part of best practices. Interviewee 8 said that it
is wise to go through expectations at the beginning of the collaboration but also throughout.
Especially at the operational level every buyer and the supplier’s contact person can have
different preferences in ways to communicate. When both parties know what to expect from
each other it is possible to develop a relationship where collaboration runs smoothly. Many
interviewees also said that to fully succeed in developing great supplier relationships internal
stakeholders have to be on the same page and trust needs to be there.
59
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
In this final chapter conclusions of this study are provided. First, the empirical findings are
discussed and compared with the theoretical background, then research questions are being
answered and finally, ideas for further research are identified.
6.1 Comparison of theoretical and empirical findings This chapter aims to mirror the study results to existing research. The findings of this study
support the existing studies and theories regarding SRM processes, activities, and best
practices. In theory, SRM is viewed as a strategic process where a specific set of activities
are executed including setting up, establishing, stabilizing, and dissolving relationships with
suppliers to create and maintain value to both parties and these relationships can be stabilized
by ongoing discussion and adjustment (Moeller et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 2004). Empirical
findings emphasize the effect of SRM on key supplier relationships, SRM was seen to
increase trust, loyalty, and transparency in the relationships and enables successful
collaboration long-term which creates value to both parties as well as customers. In theory,
the strength of SRM is its focus on inter-enterprise and cross-department processes and all
roles involved in these processes (Herrmann & Hodgson, 2001) and it can be defined as a
business process that supports value capture between customers and suppliers as well as
aims to create a maximum financial performance (Magnan et al., 2008; Lambert &
Schwieterman, 2012). Empirical findings support these views and show that SRM is viewed
as a strategic process that aims to develop mutually beneficial relationships, consists of the
operational and strategic levels of the organization, and aims for value creation in all levels
of the organization. The aim is to increase efficiency, decrease costs and increase market
performance through eliminating non-value-adding activities.
Theoretical frame emphasized the structural governance of processes and activities yet the
empirical findings show that clear framework and processes need to exist to be able to
perform successful SRM, also relational governance mechanisms, genuine willingness to
collaborate on both sides, personal relationships, and having the right “fit” with the company
and people involved in the relationships is just as crucial. SRM was seen as the tool for
60
technological innovations and more effective product and process development. Theoretical
framework emphasized operational efficiency, risk management, and avoiding disruptions
which aligned with empirical findings. Also, the empirical findings highlighted the need for
systematic assessment of changes in the market environment.
According to previous research (e.g. Trent, 2005), collaboration occurs when two or more
companies work together to achieve common objectives and when they actively help each
other achieve their respective objectives and collaborative relationships are formed with a
limited set of suppliers that are crucial for company’s success. These types of relationships
include wide sharing of resources, joint strategy development sessions, and a wide scope of
interaction. (Trent, 2005) Empirical findings show that companies make great efforts in
finding the right suppliers to partner with and emphasize that the relationship truly has to be
a win-win solution for both due to when the other party tries to make production more
efficient it ends up being more costly to the other hence it is crucial to work together towards
common goals. According to the empirical findings in successful key supplier relationships,
a solid foundation is based on trust, open communication and transparency, knowledge
sharing, and respect towards one another. The majority of the interviewees highlighted the
importance of knowledge and information sharing and many of them stated that all
knowledge that can be shared should be shared.
Similarities were found in benefits, challenges, motives, and barriers, some of which were
emphasized clearly over the others including (1) benefits of cost reduction and cost
efficiency, technical innovations, improved quality, on-time delivery, flexibility, and
customer satisfaction, (2) motivators of gaining clarity and structure to buyer-supplier
relationships, increase transparency and reduce complexity for both parties, allow value
creation to occur at all levels (operational and strategic), wanting to become a partner of
choice and the aim to develop a beneficial relationship for both parties, (3) challenges with
values, company cultures or long-term goals not matching with the supplier, lack of internal
framework, alignment and commitment, changes in the business environment and challenges
with being locked in a contract that does not serve either party. According to previous
research, SRM affects competitive advantage (Lintukangas, 2010; Herrmann & Hodgson,
2001; Cousins & Spekman, 2003; Dalvi & Kant, 2015), and even though this research was
61
not focused on creating competitive advantage, the interviewees emphasized that SRM
creates competitive advantage in the market.
According to previous research, SRM allows supplier relationships to be manageable and
transparent at every level of the organization and the focus is on long-term development and
the relationships should be mutually beneficial so that long-term collaboration can occur
(Hughes, 2008). The empirical findings highlighted the influence of people behind the
processes and the effect they have on the relationship. The empirical findings show that it is
beneficial to pay attention to people both internally and on the supplier’s side, to make sure
that everyone is on the same page when it comes to collaboration and all stakeholders are
going in the same direction. Issues should be solved through effective communication and
in cases where it still does not work people should be changed or the cooperation should be
terminated. Empirical findings show that affecting people internally and externally is
different and affecting the supplier’s side is naturally more challenging, due to it being
outside the business. Empirical findings emphasize the importance of making an effort in
supplier selection to not only look at the supplier now but also their future potential through
analysing their development mindset and future avenues to avoid situations where the
company cultures, long-term goals, and objectives would not match as the aim is to develop
the collaboration long term.
According to Huemer (2006) value creation occurs “between as well as within companies in
supply relationships” and collaboration is the key enabler of value creation as it does not
happen in isolation (Möller & Törrönen, 2003; Lindgreen & Wynstra, 2005; Borys &
Jemison, 1989). Key-value drivers for SRM value creation are innovation, sustainability,
resilience, and leagality (PwC, 2013) which were emphasized in empirical findings as well.
Throughout the empirical research, it was emphasized that value creation occurs at every
level at the organization, internally as well as within key supplier relationships. According
to previous research, companies gain more value for their customers by working with their
most collaborative suppliers comparing to their least collaborative suppliers (Hughes, 2008)
which also the empirical findings show; the interviewees highlighted that it is easier to create
value end-customers with their key suppliers as they understand the business, strategy,
market position and are open for joint development actions. Trust, empathy, open
communication, and win-win orientation were all recognized as crucial elements for value
62
creation that aligns with the theoretical framework (PwC, 2013). According to Hughes
(2008), it is crucial in value creation to expand the scope of interaction between buyers and
suppliers to cover nearly the entire organization. Interviewees highlighted the importance of
bringing different specialists into the negotiations so that the right knowledge is available as
well as the aim of committing those business units to SRM that the supplier is delivering for
so that all stakeholders are involved. Many interviewees mentioned involving internal
stakeholders as much as possible one of the key best practices they aim for.
6.2 Answering the research questions
To answer the research questions, it was required to familiarize with the theoretical
background of SRM and value creation. After collecting and analysing data from
interviewing professionals that are working with SRM, closely with key suppliers, the
research questions of this study can be answered.
The main research question for this research was:
How to create value through effective supplier relationship management?
A summarized answer to the main research question is provided at the end of this chapter
after addressing the sub-questions that were aligned to support finding the answer for the
main research question. To answer the main research question, the main research question
is divided into three sub-questions and they are:
What are the benefits of SRM?
The benefits of SRM are linked to the company, industry, and market environment and are
aligned with the strategic objectives of the company. However benefits that can be realized
in most companies include increased value creation, cost reductions, and improved
efficiency, technical innovations, improved quality, and on-time delivery and customer
satisfaction, increased flexibility, improved transparency and decreased complexity in
buyer-supplier relationships, competitive advantage, improved product offering and
availability, mitigation on risks, improved knowledge sharing and information flow,
63
increased trust and loyalty in the relationships and elimination of non-value adding
processes. SRM is utilized as a coordinated way of aligning internal and external resources
with the company’s key suppliers and especially key suppliers are viewed as an extension
of the company who contribute to business and success long-term. Through a clear SRM
strategy and systematic efforts, benefits can be gained short- and long-term.
What are the challenges of SRM?
Challenges of SRM are linked to a company, industry, and market environment and vary
between the companies however challenges that many companies are facing regarding SRM
include lack of alignment and engagement internally and externally, lack of business
involvement, lack of wanting to make a long-term commitment, changes in the market
environment, system restrictions, lack of competencies and capabilities and lack of proper
performance measurement. One of the key challenges is values or long-term goals not
matching with the supplier which puts emphasis on the importance of supplier selection and
also ending cooperation in cases where it no longer serves the other or neither party. These
situations often stem from changes in the buyer or supplier’s strategy or lack of
communication and these challenges should always be addressed rather sooner than later.
What SRM practices are effective in value creation?
The practices that are effective to value creation are linked to the industry and business
however most practices are valid in most companies. Collaboration is the key to value
creation and due to value creation occurring at multiple levels, SRM needs to be emphasized
at all levels of the organization. Value creation occurs at various interaction points
throughout the organization between different levels and people between the buyer and the
supplier and requires a clear strategy, framework, and internal alignment from the
organization. It is important to put efforts into those key suppliers that are the right fit for
the company or have potential as well as end collaborations that do not bring value. Weekly,
monthly and yearly meetings as well as constant communication with key suppliers are
crucial in value creation as well as collecting and giving feedback to suppliers so that
development can happen.
64
Finally, the main research question addressed in this thesis was:
How to create value through effective supplier relationship management?
Value creation occurs at different interaction points at all levels of the organization and
therefore a clear SRM strategy and framework are required that are aligned with the
company’s strategic objectives. Cooperation with key suppliers is the key for value creation
as the aim is to build relationships with win-win orientations for both parties and achieve
larger success together than would be possible alone. Supplier development has a significant
role in value creation as it allows better information sharing, joint development efforts,
access to new technology, and innovation. Trust, transparency, and open communication are
all crucial in allowing value creation to happen and therefore they should be systematically
built since day one with a key supplier and constantly maintained.
People in the project teams affect the relationship and can affect it for the better or the worse.
To allow maximum value creation with key suppliers the aim should be in building “winning
teams”; to match buyers and suppliers’ representatives as well as possible to build successful
cooperation. In the supplier selection phase, the focus should be on the supplier’s future
potential as well as company culture and values. According to the study most challenges in
SRM and value creation were linked to buyers and suppliers’ strategies, culture, and/or
values not matching and therefore these areas should be emphasized in the selection process
to mitigate these risks.
To conclude; to create value through effective SRM the company should have a clear
framework, identify wanted benefits and objectives and work towards them, identify
possible challenges and address them, emphasize SRM throughout the organization, and aim
to find the best suppliers to a partner today but who also would have future potential going
forward and part ways with suppliers where the cooperation no longer serve one or neither
party. All information that can be shared should be shared to allow better information flow
and knowledge sharing. The company should cherish its key suppliers and be loyal to them
and avoid any opportunistic behaviour to build successful cooperation long-term.
65
6.3 Conclusions The purpose of this research was to study value creation through effective SRM, its
definition, benefits, challenges, barriers, and practices. The aim was to gain a better
understanding of value creation in buyer-supplier relationships and identify the ways it
occurs in different levels of the organizations. The aim was to gain a better understanding in
this area, to support companies in understanding value creation and the ways SRM can be
used as a tool for value creation. The theoretical background was around SRM and value
creation theories.
The key findings of this study were that value creation occurs at all levels of the organization
and therefore SRM should be emphasized throughout the organization accordingly. It occurs
in different interaction points between the buyer and the supplier and people have a huge
effect on the relationship due to their human nature. Therefore, the focus should be on
committing and engaging internal stakeholders so that the organization would “stand
behind” their SRM efforts. The aim should be in building project teams, where the
collaboration would run with the supplier as smoothly as possible. Companies should share
information and communicate openly at the operational and strategic level of the
organization and engage all the relevant stakeholders on both the buyer's and the supplier’s
side.
Another key finding was that effective governance is the key to unlocking SRM value. Clear
SRM framework, responsibilities, and ownership of the supplier relationships give clarity to
SRM and support internal alignment. Also, practices that support value creation short- and
long terms are important to be in place to succeed. This was emphasized especially in
companies that have a large number of contact people interacting on both sides to ensure
that everyone is on the same page.
Supplier development and early supplier involvement were also seen as a crucial part of
value creation with the supplier. Early supplier involvement allows the supplier to bring
added value by not only sharing their market expertise but also knowledge of product and
process development and innovation. When measuring the supplier performance, measuring
co-operation also on a subjective level allows both parties to look at the relationship and
66
identify what is working well in the relationship in that area and what areas would require
improvement. Feedback on both sides and also the ability to react to received feedback was
seen as important for the development of the relationship.
According to study findings, key supplier relationships were seen as extremely important to
the companies, and key suppliers are treated as partners, and the aim in these relationships
is to build maximum value long-term. The aim with key suppliers was to develop a
collaboration where the relationship would be a win-win solution for both parties and
support each party's success. These relationships are development-oriented and aim for a
product or process innovation to succeed even better in the market. Research findings show,
that in a competitive market the company wants to be the customer of choice to attract the
most suitable suppliers to work with and collaborate with suppliers that have the most long-
term potential.
In today’s world where the pandemic has hit hard, key supplier relationships have a huge
impact on the company and its value creation. Key supplier relationships bring flexibility,
support, information sharing, joint forecasting just to name a few which all support the
company’s ability to operate in the market where the future is very unpredictable. With
collaborating with key suppliers, there’s a lot of value created in being able to rely on
partners in tough times like these. Value creation is certainly not easy as it requires
systematic SRM effort with suppliers but has a huge impact on the company’s performance
and the amount of value created. Value creation aims to perform better and to be better
together than alone and gain a competitive advantage to succeed in the market.
6.4 Managerial implications Studies show that many companies can point out occasional success stories on how
collaboration with a key supplier has brought a significant amount of value however only a
few have successfully implemented collaboration with key suppliers into their business. The
implementation of SRM practices is not easy and requires a lot of continuous effort and
follow up in various areas of business however the benefits it can bring in terms of value
creation can be tremendous. In this study all companies seemed to be doing well in value
67
creation through SRM, however there were key challenges and areas that had room for
improvement. As one of the interviewees stated, the company he previously worked had put
clear SRM framework and practices in place and the financial improvements and innovation
efforts gained were significant and had affected the company’s competitive advantage.
Now, he had moved on to the next company to do the same. This is a great example of SRM
bringing great benefits and by putting effort in this area it supports the company in achieving
its strategic goals and competitive advantage.
To thrive in the market and especially in constantly changing market environment companies
constantly need to reorient themselves to continuously identify and capitalize ways to create
value to with their suppliers. To be able to do so the business has to be committed internally
and in line when it comes to working with key suppliers. Since this was seen as one of the
biggest challenges in SRM, companies should focus on improving and engaging internal
stakeholders to improve in this area. Since people in both the buyers and suppliers side have
an impact on the relationship quality, the aim should be in building “winning teams” to
achieve maximum value creation. Also, one of focus areas is improving the availability of
real-time information as it would increase efficiency and improve decision making due to
having the most relevant information available at all times. Supplier performance
measurement is also important in terms of value creation and companies should also include
subjective measurements in their criteria. Measuring co-operation also on a subjective level
allows both parties to look at the relationship and identify what is working well in the
relationship in that area and what areas would require improvement.
6.5 Future research avenues
Suggestions for future studies would be to aim to understand value creation in SRM context
even better and perhaps study the phenomena as a case study in a single company, to gain a
better understanding of value creation practices in a specific company or in a certain
industry. Also, due to internal alignment being identified as one of the most important factors
in value creation through SRM it was also identified as one of the biggest challenges and
therefore it would be interesting to see studies regarding that area.
68
REFERENCES
Abdullah, R & Maharjan, K. (2003) Critical elements of supplier development in the
Malaysian automobile industry: parts and components procurement and supplier
development practice in proton. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 9,
2, 65-87.
Allee, V. (2003) The future of knowledge: Increasing prosperity through value networks,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam.
Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management 17, 1, 99-120.
Batson, R. (2008) A survey of best practices in automotive supplier development.
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 8, 2, 129-144.
Bemelmans, J., Voordijk, H., Vos, B. & Buter, J. (2012). Assessing buyer–supplier
relationship management: Multiple case-study in the Dutch construction industry. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 138, 1, 163-176.
Borys, B. & Jemison, D.B. (1989) Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical
issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management. The Academy of
Management Review 14, 2, 234-249.
Carmeli, A. (2004) Strategic human capital and the performance of public sector
organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management 20, 4, 375-392.
Callaway, S. & Dobrzykowski, D. (2009) Service-oriented entrepreneurship: service-
dominant logic in green design and healthcare. Service Science 1, 4, 225–240.
Chakraborty, S., Bhattacharya, S. & Dobrzykowski, D. D. (2014) Impact of Supply Chain
Collaboration on Value Co-creation and Firm Performance: A Healthcare Service Sector
Perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance 11, C, 676-694.
69
Choy, K., Fan, K., & Lo, V. (2003) Development of an intelligent customer-supplier
relationship management system: the application of case-based reasoning. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 103, 4, 263-274.
Chen, I., Paulraj, A., Lado, A., (2004) Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm
performance. Journal of Operations Management 22, 5, 505–523.
Cousins, P.D. & Spekman, R. (2003) Strategic supply and the management of interand intra-
organisational relationships. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 9, 1, 19-29.
Cox, A. (2004) The art of the possible: relationship management in power regimes and
supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 9, 5, 346- 356.
Day, M., Magnan, G., Webb, M. & Hughes, J. (2008) Strategic Supplier Relationship
Management. Supply Chain Management Review, 12, 4.
Danese, P., Romano, P. (2012) Relationship between downstream integration, performance
measurement systems and supply network efficiency. International Journal of Production
Research 50, 7, 2002–2013.
Dalvi, M.V. & Kant, R. (2015) Benefits, criteria and activities of supplier development: a
categorical literature review. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 27, 4, 653-
675.
Deloitte (2015a) Supplier Relationship Management (SRM). Identifying and maximising the
value of strategic supplier partnering. [www document]. [Accessed 20th of June 2020]
Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ch/Documents/process- and-
operations/ch-en-operations-supplier-relationship-management.pdf
Deloitte (2015b) Supplier Relationship Management (SRM). Redefining the value of
strategic supplier collaboration. [www document]. [Accessed 24th of October 2020]
Available: http://www.qeweb.com/upload/202003/13/202003130144459162.pdf
70
Dyer, J.H. & Chu, W. (2003) The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and
improving performance: empirical evidence from the United States, Japan and Korea.
Organizational Science, 14, 57-68.
Dyer, J.H. & Nobeoka, K. (2002) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-
sharing network: the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal 21, 3, 345-367.
Ellram, L.M. & Carr, A. (1994) Strategic purchasing: A history and review of the literature.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30, 2, 10-18.
Enz, M.G. and Lambert, D.M. (2012) Using cross functional, cross firm teams to co‐create
value: the role of financial measures. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 3, 495‐507.
Eriksson, P. & Kovalainen, A. (2008) Qualitative methods in business research. Los
Angeles, [Calif.]; London: SAGE.
Eskola, J. and Suoranta, J. (1998) Johdatus Laadulliseen Tutkimukseen. Vastapaino,
Tampere.
Faisal, N.M., Banwet, D.K. & Shankar, R. (2007) Information risks management in supply
chains: An assessment and mitigation framework. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, 20 (6), 677-699.
Fiol, C. M. (2001) Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage.
Journal of Management 27, 6, 691-699.
Forsström, B. (2005) Value co-creation in industrial buyer–seller partnerships - Creating and
exploiting interdependencies. An empirical case study. Doctoral dissertation. Åbo Akademi
University Press, Åbo.
Galvagno, M. & Dalli, D. (2014) Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review.
Managing Service Quality 24, 6, 643-683.
71
Grant, R.M. & Cibin, R. (1996) Strategy, structure and market turbulence: the international
oil majors, 1970-1991. Scandinavian Journal of Management 12, 2, 165-188.
Gunasekaran, A. & Ngai, E.W. (2004) Information systems in supply chain integration and
management. European Journal of Operational Research, 159 (2), 269-295.
Hald, K., Ellegaard, C., (2010) Supplier evaluation processes: the shaping and reshaping of
supplier performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31.
8, 888–910.
Hafeez, K., Zhang, Y. & Malak, N. (2002) Core competence for sustainable competitive
advantage: a structured methodology for identifying core competence. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 49, 1, 28-35.
Herrman, J. & Hogson, B. (2001) SRM: Leveraging the supply base for competitive
advantage. SMTA. Originally published in the Proceedings of SMTA International
Conference, Chicago, Illinois, October 1, 2001. [www-document] [Accessed 20th of June
2020]. Available:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.465.5212&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Heide, J., John, G., (1990) Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint action
in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 27, 1, 24–36.
Hirsjärvi, S., Remes, P., Sajavaara, P. (2015) Tutki ja kirjoita. Bookwell Oy, Porvoo.
Horvath, L. (2001) Collaboration: The key to value creation in supply chain
management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 6, 5, 205-207.
Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S. E. (2005) Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 9, 1277-1288.
Hughes, J. (2008) From vendor to partner: why and how leading companies collaborate with
supplier for competitive advantage. Global business and organizational excellence 27, 3,
21-37.
72
Huemer, L. (2006) Supply management: value creation, coordination and positioning in
supply relationships. Journal of long-range planning, 39., 2, 133-153.
Irene, N., Nadurupati, S., Tasker, P. (2010) Value Co-creation in the delivery of outcome-
based contracts for business-to-business service, AIM Research
Working Paper Series.
Johnson, J.L., Sohi, R.S. & Grewal, R. (2004) The role of relational knowledge stores in
interfirm partnering. Journal of Marketing 68, 3, 21-36.
Kaid, L. L. & Wadsworth, A. J. (1989) Content analysis. Measurement of communication
behaviour, 197-217.
Kamukama, N., Kyomuhangi, D. S., Akisimire, R. & Orobia, L. A. (2017) Competitive
advantage. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 8, 2, 221-234.
Kandampully, J. (2002) Innovation as the core competency of a service organization: the
role of technology, knowledge and networks. Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 1, 18-
26.
Khan, Z. & Nicholson, J. D. (2014) An investigation of the cross-border supplier
development process: Problems and implications in an emerging economy. International
Business Review 23, 6, 1212-1222.
Krause, D. & Ellram, L. (1997) Critical elements of supplier development – The buying-
firm perspective. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 3, 1, 21- 31.
Krause, D., Handfield, R. & Scannell, T. (1998) An empirical investigation of supplier
development: reactive and strategic processes. Journal of Operations Management 17, 1,
39-58.
73
Krause, D., Scannell, T. & Calantone, R. (2000) A structure analysis for the effectiveness of
manufacturing firms’ strategies to improve supplier performance, Decision Sciences, 31, 1,
33-55.
Kraljic, P. (1983) Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard business review
61, 5, 109–.
Kähkönen, A-K. & Lintukangas, K. (2012) The underlying potential of supply management
in value creation. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 18, 2, 68-75.
Lambert, D.M., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J. & Croxton, K.L., (2006) Implementing Supply Chain
Management. Supply Chain Management; Processes, Partnerships, Performance 2, 217-
235.
Lambert, D. & Schwieterman, M. (2012) Supplier relationship management as a macro
business process. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17, 3, 337- 352.
Lee, H.L. & Whang, S. (2000). Information sharing in a supply chain. International Journal
of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 1 (1), 79-93.
Liu, A.H., Mark P.L. & Bernhardt, K.L. (2005) Examining Customer Value Perceptions of
Organisational Buyers When Sourcing from Multiple Vendors. Journal of Business
Research 58, 5, 559-568.
Lintukangas, K. (2010) Conceptualizing Supplier Relationship Management. Industrial
Marketing and Purchasing Group. Originally published at the 26th IMP-conference in
Budapest, Hungary in 2010. [www-document] Available:
:http://www.impgroup.org/uploads/papers/7376.pdf [Accessed 20th of June 2020].
Lindgreen, A. and Wynstra, F. (2005) Value in business markets: What do we know? Where
are we going? Industrial Marketing Management 34, 7, 732-748.
Liker, J. K., & Choi, T.Y. (2004) Building Deep Supplier Relationships. Harvard business
review 82, 12, 104–113.
74
Martin, J. H. & Grbac, B. (2003) Using supply chain management to leverage a firm’s
market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management 32, 25-38.
Metters, R. & Marucheck, A., (2007) Service Management—Academic Issues and Scholarly
Reflections from Operations Management Researchers. Decision Sciences Journal, 38, 2,
195-214.
Metsämuuronen, J. (2007) Tutkimuksen tekemisen perusteet ihmistieteissä, Vaajakoski,
Gummerus Kirjapaino Oy.
Moeller, S., Fassnacht, M. & Klose, S. (2006) A framework for supplier relationship
management. Journal of Business to Business Marketing 13, 4, 69-94.
Morash, E. & Clinton, S. (1998) Supply chain integration: Customer value through
collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 6, 4, 104-120.
Möller, K. (2006) Role of competences in creating customer value: A value-creation
logic approach. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 8, 913-924.
Möller, K.E. and Törrönen, P. (2003) “Business suppliers’ value creation potential – A
capability-based analysis”, Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 2, 109-118.
Nokkentved, C., (2007) Enabling Supply Networks with Collaborative Information
Infrastructures. An Empirical Investigation of Business Model Innovation in Supplier
Relationship Management (PhD Dissertation). Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
(Institute of Informatics and Institute of Management Politics & Philosophy) and IBM
Global Business Services. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing Group.
Oghazi, P., Rad, F., Zaefarian, G., Beheshti, H. & Mortazavi, S. (2016). Unity is strength: A
study of supplier relationship management integration. Journal of Business Research, 69,
11, 4804.
75
Park, J., Shin, K., Chang, T. & Park, J. (2010) An integrative framework for supplier
relationship management. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110, 4, 495-515.
Payne, A. & Holt, S. (2001) Diagnosing Customer Value: Integrating the Value Process and
Relationship Marketing. British Journal of Management 12, 2, 159−182.
Peteraf, M. A. & Barney, J. B. (2003) Unraveling the resource-based tangle: MDE MDE.
Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 4, 309-323.
Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance.
New York, Free Press.
Prajogo, D., Chowdhury, M., Yeung, A. & Cheng, T. (2010) The relationship between
supplier management and firm's performance: A multidimensional perspective. Supply
Chain Management and Information Systems (SCMIS), 2010 8th International Conference
on 2010 8th International Conference on Supply Chain Management and Information, 1-7.
PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) (2013) Supplier Relationship Management, How key
suppliers drive your company’s competitive advantage. PwC Netherlands online
publications.
PurchaseControl (2018) Improve supplier relationship management. [www document].
[Accessed 20th of June 2020] Available:
https://www.purchasecontrol.com/uk/blog/improve- supplier-relationship-management/
Sahay, B. 2003. Supply chain collaboration: The key to value creation. Work Study, 52, 2,
76-83.
Schuh, C., Strohmer, M.F., Easton, S., Hales, M. & Triplat, A. (2014) Supplier Relationship
Management. [Online]. Berkeley, CA: Apress.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2014) Kvalitatiivinen sisällönanalyysi. [www document]
[Accessed 20th of December 2020] Available: https://metodix.fi/2014/05/19/seitamaa-
hakkarainen- kvalitatiivinen-sisallon-analyysi/
76
Sjoerdsma, M. & van Weele, A. (2015). Managing supplier relationships in a new product
development context. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21, 3, 192-203.
Trent, R.J. (2005) Why relationships matter. Supply Chain Management Review, 9, 8, 53-
59.
Tseng, S. (2014) The impact of knowledge management capabilities and supplier
relationship management on corporate performance. International Journal of Production
Economics 154, 39-47.
Tuomi, J. Sarajärvi, A. 2002. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Helsinki, Tammi.
Tuomi, J. & Sarajärvi, A. 2018. Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Uudistettu laitos.
Helsinki, Tammi.
Ulaga, W. & Eggert, A. (2006) Value-based Differentiation in Business Relationships:
Gaining and Sustaining Key-Supplier Status. Journal of Marketing 70, 1, 119-136.
Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 68, 1-17.
Vargo, S. & Lusch, R. (2008) Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 36, 1, 1-10.
Vargo, S. & Akaka, M. A. (2009) Service-Dominant Logic as a Foundation for Service
Science: Clarifications. Service Science 1, 1, 32-41.
Walter, A., Ritter, T. & Gemünden, H.G. (2001) Value creation in buyer–seller relationships:
Theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier’s perspective. Industrial
Marketing Management 30, 4, 365-377.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001) Human resources and the resource-
based view of the firm. Journal of Management 27, 6, 701-721.
77
Yeung, A.C.L. (2008) Strategic supply management, quality initiatives, and organizational
performance. Journal of Operations Management 26, 4, 490-502.
Yeniyurt, S., Henke Jr J.W., Yalcinkaya, G. (2014) A longitudinal analysis of supplier
involvement in buyers’ new product development: working relations, inter-dependence, co-
innovation, and performance outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 42, 3,
291–308.
Yin, R. (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, California, Sage
Publications.
Zsidisin, G.A., Ellram, L. & Ogden, J.A. (2003) The relationships betweenpurchasing and
supply management’s perceived value and participation in strategic supplier cost
management activities. Journal of Business Logistics, 24, 2, 129-154.
78
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Interview questions
GENERAL
1. Minkälainen tausta sinulla on toimittajasuhteiden hallinnasta? Kokemus vuosina? What is
your background in SRM? Experience of SRM in years?
2. Kuinka montaa avaintoimittajasuhdetta hallinnoit? How many key supplier relationships
do you manage?
3. Mikä sinusta on toimittajasuhteiden hallinnassa parasta/palkitsevinta? What do you find
most rewarding in SRM?
4. Entä haastavinta? What do you find most challenging in SRM?
SUPPLIER COLLABORATION AND DEVELOPMENT
5. Miten kuvailisit yrityksen suhdetta avaintoimittajiin? How would you describe your
relationship with key suppliers?
6. Kehitättekö yhteistyötä avaintoimittajien kanssa ja miten? Minkälaisia tuloksia olette
saaneet? Do you aim for supplier development and if yes, what kind of results have you
received?
7. Minkä koet tärkeänä tehokkaassa yhteistyön kehittämisessä toimittajien kanssa? What do
you think is important in effective supplier development?
79
SRM MOTIVES
8. Onko yrityksessä määritelty strategia toimittajasuhteiden hallinnalle? Miten sitä
toteutetaan? Have you got a clear strategy for SRM? How is it implemented?
9. Minkälaisia tavoitteita teillä on toimittajasuhteiden hallinnalle? MItä haluaisitte saavuttaa
toimittajasuhteiden hallinnalla? What goals do you have for SRM? What would you like to
achieve through the SRM programme?
10. Onko jotain mitä haluaisit toimittajasuhteiden hallinassa kehittää? Entäpä suhteiden
osalta? Is there anything that you would like to develop in terms of SRM? How about in the
relationships?
SRM BENEFITS, CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS
11. Mitä etuja toimittajasuhteiden hallinnalla on kokemuksesi mukaan? Minkälaisia etuja
hyötyjä olet huomannut? What benefits have you gained from SRM?
12. Minkälaisia toimintatapoja olet huomannut menestyksekkäiksi toimittajasuhteiden
hallinnan osalta? What practices have you noticed to be successful in SRM?
13. Minkälaisia haasteita toimittajasuhteiden hallinnassa olet kokenut? What kind of
challenges have you had in SRM?
14. Mitä olet tehnyt päästäksesi yli haasteista? What have you done to overcome these
challenges?
SRM PROCESS
15. Minkälainen prosessi teillä on toimittajasuhteiden hallintaan? What kind of process do
you have for SRM?
80
16. Mitä aktiviteetteja prosessiin kuuluu? What kind of activities are in the process?
17. Miten johdat toimittajasuhteita avain toimittajien kanssa? How do you manage supplier
relationships with key suppliers?
18. Koetko prosessin toimivaksi ja onko siinä jotakin mitä haluaisit kehittää? Do you find
the process relevant and is there anything you would like to develop?
19. Mittaatteko toimittajasuhteiden hallintaa jollakin tavoin? In what ways do you measure
your SRM efforts?
VALUE CREATION
20. Mitä arvo toimittajasuhteiden hallinnan yhteydessä teille merkitsee? What does value
mean to you/the company related to SRM?
21. Minkälaista arvoa toivoisitte luovanne toimittajasuhdehallinnan myötä? What kind of
value would you like to create through SRM?
22. Mitkä elementit koet tärkeiksi toimittajasuhteissa arvonluonnin kannalta? Minkälaisia
elementtejä suhteessa tulisi olla, jotta arvonluonti olisi mahdollista? What elements in the
relationship with the supplier do you think are important for value creation?
23. Minkälaisia toimittajasuhdehallinnan elementtejä koet tärkeiksi arvonluonnin kannalta?
What are that practices that you have noticed important in value creation?
24. Minkälaisia haasteita olet kohdannut arvonluonnissa? What challenges have you faced
in value creation?
25. Minkälaista konkreettista arvoa olette saaneet toimitajayhteistyön kautta? Entä
toimittajasuhdehallinnan? What value have you gained from collaborating with key
suppliers? And through SRM?
81
26. Pyrittekö hallitsemaan toimittajayhteistyöhön liittyviä riskejä jollakin tavoin? Do you
aim to mitigate risks related to supplier collaboration in some ways?
27. Näetkö esteitä arvonluonnille? Do you see any barriers in terms of value creation?
28. Mitä haluaisitte arvonluonnilla saavuttaa? What would you like to achieve through value
creation?
29. Koetko, että tehokkaalla toimittajasuhteiden hallinnalla on vaikutusta yrityksen
kilpailuetuun ja jos kyllä niin miten? Do you find that effective SRM has effective on
company’s competitive advantage and if yes, how?
